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

NSH5

Nashville Predators

MTL2

Montréal Canadiens

Thursday, October 8

Final · Centre Bell

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 (41% for Nashville), and Nashville came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−5 points41%
Back-to-back0 points41%
Our chance for Nashville the morning of the game41%
Tonight's lineup−2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known39%

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 (59% for Montréal), and it went Nashville’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+5 points59%
Back-to-back0 points59%
Our chance for Montréal the morning of the game59%
Tonight's lineup+2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known61%

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, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Good looks against hopeful ones

    On shot quality, Montréal ranks 1st in the league and Nashville ranks 23rd. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Canadiens’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Predators’.

    Held up

    On how dangerous the average shot was, Montréal had 7.1% a shot and Nashville 3.8% a shot. Coming in, Montréal was at 6.9% a shot and Nashville at 6.1% a shot.

    Called it, and then some. Nashville’s shots at 5-on-5 were less dangerous than usual: a 3.8% chance of scoring on the average shot, against their usual 6.1% (league average 6.3%). A team strays this far about once every 45 games.

    MTL 6.9% a shot · NSH 6.1% a shot
    Coming in
    MTL 7.1% a shot · NSH 3.8% a shot
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Canadiens hit; the Predators mostly don’t

    On physicality, Montréal ranks 9th in the league and Nashville ranks 28th. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Canadiens hit more than the Predators in the close stretches of the game.

    Didn’t happen

    On hit score in close games (arena-adjusted, 100 is league average), Montréal had hit score 52 and Nashville hit score 78. Coming in, Montréal was at hit score 109 and Nashville at hit score 85.

    MTL hit score 109 · NSH hit score 85
    Coming in
    MTL hit score 52 · NSH hit score 78
    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.

Montréal usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Montréal wins 77. The goals went the other way.

23%
Nashville: 16 wins, plus half of the 14 ties
77%
Montréal: 70 wins, plus half of the 14 ties

Nashville had 30 chances worth 1.9 expected goals. Montréal had 48 chances worth 3.5 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.

NashvilleMontréal
Goals52
Shots on goal2033
Expected goals1.93.5
Shot attempts at 5-on-52956
Power plays2 of 40 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: S. Stamkos +0.8, A. Kerfoot +0.8 and N. Suzuki +0.8.

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
  • R. JosiBig night

    2 assists. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Defense
    27:49
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–1.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.0typical 6.9
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.0typical 6.1
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.06
  • R. O'ReillyOff night
    Center
    23:04
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.0typical 7.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won9 of 19typical 56%
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.5typical 2.4
  • B. SkjeiDid his job
    Defense
    21:29
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.1typical 6.8
  • N. PerbixDid his job
    Defense
    20:47
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.1typical 6.7
  • S. StamkosMixed night

    2 assists. A good scoresheet, but his usual jobs went quiet.

    Center
    20:46
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.1typical 7.0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.13
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • A. WilsbyOff night
    Defense
    20:41
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.6typical 6.3
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-55.1typical 2.5
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.04
Show 9 more Nashville playersHide the other Nashville players
  • F. ForsbergDid his job
    Left wing
    19:48
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.1typical 7.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-57typical 3
  • J. MarchessaultDid his job
    Right wing
    18:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.2typical 7.1
  • J. DruryDid his job
    Center
    16:41
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.2typical 6.8
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.6typical 1.9
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • A. KerfootBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Center
    14:46
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.8typical 6.4
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • M. WoodDid his job
    Right wing
    13:29
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play13.0typical 6.1
  • R. ColtonDid his job
    Center
    12:15
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.16typical 0.11
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
  • A. Edstrom★ Huge night

    2 goals (both shorthanded).

    Center
    10:19
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.08
  • R. SchaeferMixed night
    Left wing
    9:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
  • M. BourqueMixed night
    Center
    8:15
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.6typical 2.2
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: 38 ✓, 9 ≈, 19 ✕.

In net

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

  • J. SarosBig night

    31 saves on 33 shots, +1.5 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    33
    Saves
    31
    Sv%
    .939
    xGA
    3.5
    GSAx
    +1.5
    Dangerous
    5/6
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.5typical +0.1
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 6typically saves 4 of 6
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance26 of 27typically saves 25 of 27
  • J. FowlerOff night
    Goalie
    58:53
    Shots
    18
    Saves
    15
    Sv%
    .833
    xGA
    1.9
    GSAx
    −1.1
    Dangerous
    1/2
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.1typical +0.6
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance14 of 16typically saves 15 of 16

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: Nashville Predators · Montréal Canadiens