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

UTA1

Utah Mammoth

BOS6

Boston Bruins

Thursday, October 8

Final · TD Garden

Our pre-game read

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

We had this close to even (57% for Utah), and it went Boston’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+11 points57%
Back-to-back0 points57%
Our chance for Utah the morning of the game57%
Tonight's lineup+5 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known62%

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 had this close to even (43% for Boston), and Boston came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−11 points43%
Back-to-back0 points43%
Our chance for Boston the morning of the game43%
Tonight's lineup−5 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known38%

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, 0 held up, 0 partly did, and 2 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    The Bruins can’t afford to take penalties

    The Bruins’ penalty kill sits 27th in the league, and the Mammoth’s power play is 5th (8.4 expected goals per 60). Discipline matters more than usual for the Bruins tonight.

    The call The Mammoth’s power play creates at least their usual 8.4 expected goals per 60.

    Didn’t happen

    Utah’s power play created 5.2 expected goals per 60 in 13:47 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 8.4, and scored 0 goals.

    8.4 per 60
    Coming in
    5.2 per 60
    In this game
    7.5 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Sheltered against exposed

    The Bruins are 7th in the league for preventing dangerous shots, at the sheltered end; the Mammoth are 31st, at the exposed end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Bruins prevent dangerous shots better than the Mammoth do.

    Didn’t happen

    On how dangerous the average shot allowed was, Boston had 9.6% a shot and Utah 7.5% a shot. Coming in, Boston was at 6.1% a shot and Utah at 6.7% a shot.

    BOS 6.1% a shot · UTA 6.7% a shot
    Coming in
    BOS 9.6% a shot · UTA 7.5% a shot
    In this game

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.

Utah usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Utah wins 82. The goals went the other way.

82%
Utah: 76 wins, plus half of the 11 ties
18%
Boston: 12 wins, plus half of the 11 ties

Utah had 50 chances worth 4.7 expected goals. Boston had 27 chances worth 2.5 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.

UtahBoston
Goals16
Shots on goal3722
Expected goals4.72.5
Shot attempts at 5-on-56030
Power plays0 of 73 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: J. McBain +1.4, D. Pastrnak +1.0 and B. Hayton +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
  • M. SergachevDid his job
    Defense
    23:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.5–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.0typical 7.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-56.7typical 2.6
  • L. CooleyOff night
    Center
    20:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.2typical 7.3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.09
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won8 of 19typical 47%
  • N. SchmaltzDid his job
    Center
    19:52
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.0typical 7.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.6typical 2.6
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 2
  • C. KellerMixed night
    Right wing
    19:41
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.8typical 7.0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.06typical 0.10
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.7typical 2.7
  • J. MarinoMixed night
    Defense
    19:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.7typical 2.5
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.8typical 2.2
  • N. SchmidtMixed night
    Defense
    18:48
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–1.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.9typical 6.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.3typical 2.6
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.3typical 2.2
Show 12 more Utah playersHide the other Utah players
  • D. GuentherOff night
    Right wing
    18:32
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.9typical 7.2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.11
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
  • M. WeegarOff night
    Defense
    17:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    2.0–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.5typical 6.5
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 2
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
  • V. TrocheckDid his job
    Center
    17:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.6
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.5typical 7.2
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won9 of 14typical 59%
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
  • A. LeeDid his job
    Left wing
    15:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.6typical 5.8
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.32typical 0.13
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • L. CrouseOff night
    Left wing
    14:42
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.4–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.8typical 6.4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.13
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
  • B. HaytonDid his job
    Center
    14:41
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.7–0.5
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.4typical 6.4
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 3
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-59.1typical 2.6
  • D. SimashevDid his job
    Defense
    14:36
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
  • J. McBainBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 8, 77% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Center
    13:50
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.8–0.5
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 5
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.97typical 0.12
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • M. CarconeDid his job
    Left wing
    13:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.4
    Shots
    7
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.0typical 2.6
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.08
  • A. PeekeOff night
    Defense
    12:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.7typical 6.6
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • K. StenlundMixed night
    Center
    12:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.2typical 6.8
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won4 of 14typical 54%
  • D. ButDid his job
    Left wing
    10:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.37typical 0.07
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-55.9typical 2.7
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.

  • K. VejmelkaOff night
    Goalie
    43:49
    Shots
    14
    Saves
    11
    Sv%
    .786
    xGA
    1.7
    GSAx
    −1.3
    Dangerous
    2/2
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.3typical +0.4
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance9 of 12typically saves 11 of 12
  • J. Swayman★ Huge night

    36 saves on 37 shots, +3.7 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    37
    Saves
    36
    Sv%
    .973
    xGA
    4.7
    GSAx
    +3.7
    Dangerous
    4/5
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+3.7typical +0.9
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance32 of 32typically saves 30 of 32

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: Utah Mammoth · Boston Bruins