Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Last Changeworking title
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
final

COL2

Colorado Avalanche

WPG3

Winnipeg Jets

Wednesday, October 7

Final · Canada Life Centre

Our pre-game read

The win chance our model worked out before the game, kept off the site until now.

We gave Colorado a 64% chance, but Winnipeg had other ideas.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+17 points64%
Back-to-back0 points64%
Our chance for Colorado the morning of the game64%
Tonight's lineup+6 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known69%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: whether the players who dressed were stronger or weaker than the team’s usual lineup. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

We gave Winnipeg a 36% chance, and Winnipeg proved us wrong.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−17 points36%
Back-to-back0 points36%
Our chance for Winnipeg the morning of the game36%
Tonight's lineup−6 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known31%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: whether the players who dressed were stronger or weaker than the team’s usual lineup. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

What the preview said, and what happened

Of the 2 calls the preview made, 1 held up, 1 partly did, and 0 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    The Avalanche are going to test the Jets’ goalie early and often

    Winnipeg has been giving up shots all season (22nd at keeping them down), and the Avalanche rarely pass one up (1st: 69.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5).

    The call The Avalanche take at least their usual 69.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Partly

    Colorado took 69.4 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 (adjusted for score and venue), against their usual 69.6.

    69.6 per 60
    Coming in
    69.4 per 60
    In this game
    56.5 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Nobody’s sitting back in this one

    Colorado plays some of the league’s fastest games (1st for pace: 88.2 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined), and so does Winnipeg (10th). We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 88.2 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Held up

    The game ran at 94.8 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the faster team’s usual 88.2 and a league average of 81.7.

    88.2 per 60
    Coming in
    94.8 per 60
    In this game
    81.7 per 60
    League average

Each call is checked by a rule set before the game. Held up: the team reached their usual level. Partly: they fell short of their usual level but still beat the league average. When a call says one team will come out ahead, held up means they won by at least half their usual gap, and partly means they won by less. One game is a small sample, so a miss doesn’t mean the preview was wrong about the team.

Read the full preview as it stood at puck drop.

This season so far: 85 held up, 11 partly, 63 didn’t happen, out of 159 graded calls. See the track record.

Run it back

We replayed this game’s chances 100 times. Here is how often each team came out ahead.

Colorado usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Colorado wins 67. The goals went the other way.

67%
Colorado: 58 wins, plus half of the 18 ties
33%
Winnipeg: 24 wins, plus half of the 18 ties

Colorado had 52 chances worth 2.9 expected goals. Winnipeg had 34 chances worth 2.0 expected goals.

How it works: every shot in regulation that was on target or missed the net goes in as often as our expected-goals model says it should, and the game is played out 100 times that way. A rebound scramble counts as one chance, and empty-net shots are left out. A replay tied after regulation counts as half a win each, since overtime and shootouts are close to coin flips.

It doesn’t know about goalies, finishing skill or passes before a shot. It also favours the team that was chasing, because a team with a lead tends to sit back. Over the last three seasons, teams it gave 80% or more won about two games in three.

What the preview didn’t see coming

The parts of this game furthest from how these teams usually play, biggest first.

Broke the pattern: a team did the opposite of their usual habit. Further than usual: a usual habit, taken much further. Closer than usual: a usual strength or weakness that mostly disappeared. Out of character: a usually average team, far from average. Each is measured against the teams’ numbers before the game.

The numbers

How the game went, beyond the score.

ColoradoWinnipeg
Goals23
Shots on goal3419
Expected goals2.92.0
Shot attempts at 5-on-56147
Power plays0 of 10 of 2

Swing

How far each player swung tonight’s result, for his team or against it.

The biggest swings: K. Connor +1.1, M. Scheifele +1.0 and C. Perfetti +0.9.

Showhighlighting

The number is roughly in goals: what he added to his team tonight, or cost it. Tap a player to see where it came from. The label beside it is his report card from “Did they do their job?” below; L1 to L4 and P1 to P3 are tonight’s lines and pairs.

How Swing is worked outHide how Swing is worked out

Scoresheet: each goal is shared 40% to the scorer, 35% to the first assist and 25% to the second, plus a quarter of the expected goals of his own shots. A penalty drawn adds 0.16 and one taken costs 0.16, what a power play is worth on average; each faceoff won or lost moves it by 0.006.

5-on-5 counts most: expected goals for minus against with him on, half compared with league average (adjusted for score and venue) and half compared with his own team when he was on the bench, plus a smaller amount for actual goals. A player on a losing team can score well if his line held its own. Special teams: power-play and penalty-kill time compared with a league-average unit.

Company kept (counted inside 5-on-5): from every player’s 5-on-5 impact over the two seasons before, a player out with strong linemates against weak opponents gives a little back, and the reverse earns a little. Goalies: goals saved above expected. Empty-net shots and shootouts are left out. One game is a small sample: this says who swung this result, not who is better.

Did they do their job?

What each player is relied on for or better than most at, and whether he delivered.

Show
  • C. MakarDid his job
    Defense
    25:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.6
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play17.6typical 7.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 5.7
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.06typical 0.10
  • D. ToewsDid his job
    Defense
    21:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.2typical 6.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.4typical 3.1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.19typical 0.05
  • M. NecasDid his job
    Center
    20:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play18.4typical 7.0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.1typical 3.1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 4
  • N. MacKinnonDid his job
    Center
    20:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play17.6typical 7.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 6
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.26typical 0.21
  • S. MalinskiMixed night
    Defense
    18:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 5
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.07typical 0.06
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.3typical 2.0
  • N. KadriMixed night
    Center
    18:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play17.6typical 7.0
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.14
Show 11 more Colorado playersHide the other Colorado players
  • B. BurnsMixed night
    Defense
    17:28
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.0
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 5
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.9
  • A. LehkonenOff night
    Left wing
    17:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 5.3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.06typical 0.15
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.5typical 3.1
  • B. KulakDid his job
    Defense
    17:09
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.4
  • J. MansonMixed night
    Defense
    16:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.6typical 6.3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.05
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • B. NelsonRough night

    No points, and 77% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    16:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 5.8
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.14
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 3.0
  • G. LandeskogDid his job
    Left wing
    15:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 3.1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.30typical 0.14
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • J. SchwartzBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Left wing
    13:17
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • P. KellyDid his job
    Center
    12:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.8typical 6.9
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 1.9
  • F. SvechkovBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Center
    12:55
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • N. RoyMixed night
      Center
      12:10
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.7–0.1
      Shots
      3
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.9typical 6.6
      • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 8typical 51%
      • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • Z. L'HeureuxDid his job
      Left wing
      8:22
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.4–0.1
      Shots
      3
      Hits
      5
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits5typical 1
      • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.19typical 0.07
    How the cards are gradedHide how the cards are graded

    ✓ a typical night for him in the ice time he got (the level he reaches in about half his games). ≈ beat an average player at his position, a typical power play or kill, or his own team with him off the ice. ✕ neither. Power-play and penalty-kill results count half, since five players share them.

    Huge night: a hat trick or four or more points. Big night: two or more points, or a goal from a player who scores in fewer than one game in five on top of doing his jobs. Rough night: no points while the other team had 70% or more of the 5-on-5 chances with him on (xGF–xGA). Plus-minus never sets the level. A shorthanded goal counts as two points. Points never fully cover for jobs that went badly: with his jobs off, a huge night reads big and a big night reads mixed.

    Judged only from games before this one; 5-on-5 rates adjusted for score and venue. One game is a small sample: even a strong player misses a typical night about half the time. Both teams: 41 ✓, 9 ≈, 29 ✕.

    Somewhere new

    Things they aren’t known for, far beyond their usual pace.

    A night this big would happen less than one game in fifty at his usual pace, and is at least twice what an average player at his position would manage.

    In net

    Each goalie’s night: the goals he stopped beyond what the shots were worth, and the dangerous and routine saves.

    • M. BlackwoodOff night
      Goalie
      59:13
      Shots
      19
      Saves
      16
      Sv%
      .842
      xGA
      2.0
      GSAx
      −1.0
      Dangerous
      0/1
      • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.0typical +0.2
      • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
      • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance16 of 18typically saves 17 of 18
    • S. SkinnerDid his job
      Goalie
      60:00
      Shots
      34
      Saves
      32
      Sv%
      .941
      xGA
      2.9
      GSAx
      +0.9
      Dangerous
      2/3
      • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.9typical +0.2
      • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
      • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance30 of 31typically saves 29 of 31

    Every goalie has the same three jobs, judged against his own earlier starts (✓) and an average goalie (≈). Huge night: a shutout on 25 or more shots, or 3+ goals saved above expected. Big night: any other shutout, or 1.5+. Rough night: 2+ goals worse than expected, or pulled early after three or more.

    Empty-net shots are left out. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie beaten by cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really was.

    Team pages: Colorado Avalanche · Winnipeg Jets