Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
final

MIN2

Minnesota Wild

TBL3

Tampa Bay Lightning

Thursday, October 8

Final · Benchmark International Arena

The short version

What happened

The Lightning beat the Wild

Anthony Cirelli opened the scoring early in the first. John Carlson added two goals.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way. By our Swing measure, Quinn Hughes had the best night of anyone, even in a loss. The Wild tried a line they hadn’t used before: Joel Eriksson Ek, Kirill Kaprizov and Matt Boldy.

What it means

  • StreakThree straight wins for the Lightning.
  • Keep an eye onWhether the Wild keep that line together in Florida on Saturday.
  • The previewThe preview’s call didn’t hold.

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 (43% for Minnesota), and it went Tampa Bay’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−3 points43%
Who's been playing0 points43%
Back-to-back0 points43%
Our chance for Minnesota the morning of the game43%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known43%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

We had this close to even (57% for Tampa Bay), and Tampa Bay came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+3 points57%
Who's been playing0 points57%
Back-to-back0 points57%
Our chance for Tampa Bay the morning of the game57%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known57%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. 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 1 calls the preview made, 0 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Something has to give

    The Lightning are one of the league’s best for chance quality, and the Wild are near the top of the league at preventing dangerous shots. Our lean: the Lightning’s chance quality wins out.

    The call The Lightning’s chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Wild.

    Tampa Bay 5th for chance quality (a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Minnesota 6th for preventing dangerous shots

    Didn’t happen

    On chance quality, Tampa Bay had 5.9% a shot. The league average is 6.3% a shot, and they came in at 6.7% a shot.

    6.7% a shot
    Coming in
    5.9% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Vasilevskiy’s rough record against the Wild is a coincidence

    Vasilevskiy has been shaky against the Wild since 2023-24, well below his usual. It looks like a pattern, but across three seasons a goalie’s record against one team told us nothing about the next meeting. Expect the usual Vasilevskiy.

    The call If Vasilevskiy starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .913 than to his .877 against the Wild.

    6 starts against Minnesota: .877 save percentage · .913 against everyone else

    Can’t judge

    He didn’t start, so this call can’t be judged.

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: 87 held up, 11 partly, 62 didn’t happen, out of 160 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.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Minnesota wins 45 and Tampa Bay 55, close to a coin flip.

45%
Minnesota: 37 wins, plus half of the 17 ties
55%
Tampa Bay: 46 wins, plus half of the 17 ties

Minnesota had 43 chances worth 3.1 expected goals. Tampa Bay had 44 chances worth 3.4 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.

MinnesotaTampa Bay
Goals23
Shots on goal3635
Expected goals3.13.4
Shot attempts at 5-on-54960
Power plays1 of 21 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: Q. Hughes +1.1, J. Spurgeon +1.0 and E. Cernak +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
  • Q. HughesBig night

    A goal, 1 assist. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Defense
    32:36
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.8–1.4
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.4typical 7.5
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.8typical 2.7
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.10
  • J. SpurgeonDid his job
    Defense
    24:54
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.5–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    5
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.1typical 7.3
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots5typical 2
  • K. KaprizovOff night
    Left wing
    23:07
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.1typical 7.1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.6
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 5
  • J. BrodinMixed night
    Defense
    23:00
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.0typical 6.4
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.1typical 2.1
  • M. BoldyDid his job
    Left wing
    22:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.0typical 7.0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.2
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 5
  • J. Eriksson EkDid his job
    Center
    21:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.4
    Shots
    6
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.7typical 7.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.9
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 4
Show 10 more Minnesota playersHide the other Minnesota players
  • Z. BogosianRough night

    No points, and 71% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    19:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.1
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • M. ShabanovOff night
      Right wing
      16:36
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −1
      xGF–xGA
      0.9–0.8
      Shots
      3
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      1
      • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.6typical 5.9
    • B. ColemanDid his job
      Left wing
      14:20
      G
      1
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.5–0.7
      Shots
      6
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      0
      • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.9typical 6.5
      • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.22typical 0.10
      • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.2
    • Y. TreninDid his job
      Center
      12:47
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −1
      xGF–xGA
      0.7–0.4
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      4
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.3typical 6.5
      • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 4
    • B. BrinkOff night
      Right wing
      12:01
      G
      0
      A
      1
      +/−
      +1
      xGF–xGA
      0.3–0.9
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play22.8typical 6.6
      • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.9typical 2.0
    • R. HartmanRough night

      No points, and 94% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

      Right wing
      11:15
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      +1
      xGF–xGA
      0.1–1.2
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play23.8typical 6.3
      • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
      • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.4typical 2.6
    • N. SturmOff night
      Center
      10:56
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −1
      xGF–xGA
      0.4–0.6
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      2
      Blocks
      1
      • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.1typical 7.2
      • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo little time to judge
    • M. FolignoMixed night
      Left wing
      10:54
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      +1
      xGF–xGA
      0.6–0.9
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      3
      Blocks
      0
      • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
      • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 3
      • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-55.1typical 2.3
    • M. McCarronMixed night
      Center
      10:50
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −1
      xGF–xGA
      0.4–0.6
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      0
      • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill15.6typical 7.0
      • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
      • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 8typical 53%
    • D. HuntOff night
      Defense
      10:03
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −1
      xGF–xGA
      0.0–0.4
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      0
      • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    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: 39 ✓, 14 ≈, 27 ✕.

    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.

    • J. WallstedtMixed night
      Goalie
      59:03
      Shots
      35
      Saves
      32
      Sv%
      .914
      xGA
      3.4
      GSAx
      +0.4
      Dangerous
      5/5
      • ≈Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.4typical +0.7
      • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
      • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance27 of 30typically saves 28 of 30
    • D. HildebyDid his job
      Goalie
      59:37
      Shots
      36
      Saves
      34
      Sv%
      .944
      xGA
      3.1
      GSAx
      +1.1
      Dangerous
      7/7
      • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.1typical +0.6
      • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance7 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
      • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance27 of 29typically saves 27 of 29

    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: Minnesota Wild · Tampa Bay Lightning