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

VAN2

Vancouver Canucks

CAR7

Carolina Hurricanes

Thursday, October 8

Final · Lenovo Center

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Vancouver only a 22% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−25 points22%
Back-to-back0 points22%
Our chance for Vancouver the morning of the game22%
Tonight's lineup−10 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known12%

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 Carolina a 78% chance, and Carolina delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+25 points78%
Back-to-back0 points78%
Our chance for Carolina the morning of the game78%
Tonight's lineup+10 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known88%

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 Hurricanes should pile up the shots

    The Hurricanes shoot a lot (66.7 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5, 2nd in the league), and the Canucks are 30th at keeping shots down. Look for a big shot total.

    The call The Hurricanes take at least their usual 66.7 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Partly

    Carolina took 59.4 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 (adjusted for score and venue), against their usual 66.7.

    66.7 per 60
    Coming in
    59.4 per 60
    In this game
    56.5 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Canucks can’t afford to take penalties

    The Hurricanes’ power play is 8th in the league (8.0 expected goals per 60), and the Canucks’ kill is 28th. Every trip to the box hurts the Canucks more than most.

    The call The Hurricanes’ power play creates at least their usual 8.0 expected goals per 60.

    Held up

    Carolina’s power play created 21.5 expected goals per 60 in 3:10 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 8.0, and scored 3 goals.

    Called it, and then some. Carolina’s power play created 21.5 expected goals per 60, against their usual 8.0 and a league average of 7.6. A team strays this far about once every 175 games.

    8.0 per 60
    Coming in
    21.5 per 60
    In this game
    7.6 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.

Carolina earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Carolina wins 88.

12%
Vancouver: 8 wins, plus half of the 9 ties
88%
Carolina: 83 wins, plus half of the 9 ties

Vancouver had 28 chances worth 2.2 expected goals. Carolina had 42 chances worth 5.1 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.

VancouverCarolina
Goals27
Shots on goal2033
Expected goals2.25.1
Shot attempts at 5-on-52743
Power plays0 of 43 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: S. Gostisbehere +1.8, A. Svechnikov +1.5 and J. DeBrusk +1.5.

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
  • F. HronekRough night

    No points, and 72% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    23:52
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.2typical 6.2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill25.4typical 6.8
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.1
  • Z. BuiumOff night
    Defense
    23:49
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.4typical 6.2
  • T. WillanderRough night

    No points, and 89% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    20:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–1.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • E. PetterssonBig night

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

      Center
      20:20
      G
      0
      A
      2
      +/−
      +1
      xGF–xGA
      0.9–0.8
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      2
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.1typical 7.3
      • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
      • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 4
    • M. RossiDid his job
      Center
      18:55
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −2
      xGF–xGA
      0.4–0.8
      Shots
      3
      Hits
      2
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.2typical 6.0
      • –Faceoffs Relied onToo little time to judge
    • J. DeBruskBig night

      2 goals.

      Left wing
      18:44
      G
      2
      A
      0
      +/−
      +1
      xGF–xGA
      0.8–0.8
      Shots
      4
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.2typical 7.4
    Show 10 more Vancouver playersHide the other Vancouver players
    • B. BoeserDid his job
      Right wing
      18:15
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −2
      xGF–xGA
      0.4–0.6
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.2typical 7.1
    • J. LekkerimäkiOff night
      Right wing
      17:20
      G
      0
      A
      1
      +/−
      +2
      xGF–xGA
      0.9–0.8
      Shots
      3
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      0
      • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.8typical 6.7
    • E. PetterssonMixed night
      Defense
      16:57
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      +1
      xGF–xGA
      1.0–1.5
      Shots
      3
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      1
      • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill18.3typical 7.0
      • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
      • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • L. KarlssonRough night

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

      Center
      15:43
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.1–1.4
      Shots
      2
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      1
      • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.4typical 2.2
    • V. ManciniDid his job
      Defense
      15:24
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      +1
      xGF–xGA
      0.9–1.5
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      2
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 1
    • J. OleksiakRough night

      No points, and 98% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

      Defense
      14:48
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −3
      xGF–xGA
      0.0–1.1
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      0
      • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill25.1typical 7.7
      • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 1
    • P. CotterDid his job
      Left wing
      14:36
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −1
      xGF–xGA
      0.5–0.8
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      4
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 3
    • M. SassonMixed night

      No points, and 92% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

      Center
      13:46
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      0
      xGF–xGA
      0.1–1.2
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • D. O'ConnorRough night

      No points, and 90% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

      Left wing
      12:48
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −1
      xGF–xGA
      0.1–0.9
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      2
      Blocks
      0
      • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
    • A. RätyDid his job
      Center
      8:36
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −2
      xGF–xGA
      0.0–0.8
      Shots
      0
      Hits
      1
      Blocks
      0
      • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
      • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo little time to judge
    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: 36 ✓, 9 ≈, 24 ✕.

    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. LankinenRough night

      Pulled after 6 goals, 12 saves on 18 shots, −2.7 goals saved above expected.

      Goalie
      39:42
      Shots
      18
      Saves
      12
      Sv%
      .667
      xGA
      3.3
      GSAx
      −2.7
      Dangerous
      3/8
      • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-2.7typical -0.2
      • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 8typically saves 5 of 8
      • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance9 of 10typically saves 9 of 10
    • L. MeriläinenDid his job
      Goalie
      20:00
      Shots
      15
      Saves
      14
      Sv%
      .933
      xGA
      1.8
      GSAx
      +0.8
      Dangerous
      1/1
      • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.8typical -0.5
      • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
      • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance13 of 14typically saves 13 of 14
    • P. KochetkovDid his job
      Goalie
      60:00
      Shots
      20
      Saves
      18
      Sv%
      .900
      xGA
      2.2
      GSAx
      +0.2
      Dangerous
      0/1
      • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.2typical -0.1
      • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
      • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance18 of 19typically saves 18 of 19

    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: Vancouver Canucks · Carolina Hurricanes