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

CHI1

Chicago Blackhawks

NYI4

New York Islanders

Thursday, October 8

Final · UBS Arena

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Chicago only a 38% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−8 points38%
Back-to-back0 points38%
Our chance for Chicago the morning of the game38%
Tonight's lineup−1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known37%

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 NY Islanders a 62% chance, and NY Islanders delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+8 points62%
Back-to-back0 points62%
Our chance for NY Islanders the morning of the game62%
Tonight's lineup+1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known63%

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

    Turnovers could swing this one

    The Islanders give up more dangerous chances after losing the puck than most (31st at avoiding breakdowns), and the Blackhawks pounce: 8th for chances off turnovers.

    The call The Blackhawks get at least their usual 7.6% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Didn’t happen

    4.2% of Chicago’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 7.6%.

    7.6%
    Coming in
    4.2%
    In this game
    7.3%
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Depth against star power

    The Islanders are 2nd in the league for depth, at the deep end; the Blackhawks are 23rd, at the top-heavy end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Islanders spread their forward ice time deeper down the lineup than the Blackhawks.

    Held up

    On bottom-six share of forward ice time, NY Islanders had 47% and Chicago 42%. Coming in, NY Islanders was at 44% and Chicago at 41%.

    Called it, and then some. NY Islanders’s bottom-six forwards played 47% of the forwards’ 5-on-5 time, against their usual 44% and a league average of 42%. A team strays this far about once every 8 games.

    NYI 44% · CHI 41%
    Coming in
    NYI 47% · CHI 42%
    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.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Chicago wins 50 and NY Islanders 50, close to a coin flip.

50%
Chicago: 40 wins, plus half of the 20 ties
50%
NY Islanders: 40 wins, plus half of the 20 ties

Chicago had 34 chances worth 2.4 expected goals. NY Islanders had 25 chances worth 2.3 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.

ChicagoNY Islanders
Goals14
Shots on goal2319
Expected goals2.42.3
Shot attempts at 5-on-54329
Power plays0 of 31 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: B. Horvat +1.6, L. Stanley +1.1 and E. Heineman +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
  • B. ByramMixed night
    Defense
    26:35
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.9typical 5.7
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.9
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.06
  • T. BertuzziDid his job
    Left wing
    20:46
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.1typical 6.4
  • A. FrondellMixed night
    Center
    20:17
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.6typical 6.5
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 3
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won5 of 16typical 39%
  • A. LevshunovDid his job
    Defense
    19:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.15typical 0.04
  • F. NazarDid his job
    Center
    19:15
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.4typical 6.1
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won4 of 8typical 47%
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • P. KaneOff night
    Right wing
    18:07
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.6typical 7.8
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.4
Show 8 more Chicago playersHide the other Chicago players
  • S. RinzelDid his job
    Defense
    18:05
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.10typical 0.04
  • A. VlasicOff night
    Defense
    16:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.6typical 6.3
  • J. GreenwayDid his job
    Left wing
    15:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.7typical 6.2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
  • C. SmithDid his job
    Right wing
    14:54
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.4typical 6.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.9typical 2.3
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
  • R. GreeneMixed night
    Center
    14:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.1typical 6.7
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.1typical 2.2
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won5 of 14typical 42%
  • I. ColeDid his job
    Defense
    14:34
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.3typical 6.7
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • R. DonatoDid his job
    Center
    9:54
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 2
  • D. ToninatoMixed night
    Center
    8:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 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: 34 ✓, 7 ≈, 21 ✕.

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.

  • A. SoderblomOff night
    Goalie
    57:51
    Shots
    18
    Saves
    15
    Sv%
    .833
    xGA
    2.3
    GSAx
    −0.7
    Dangerous
    5/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.7typical -0.4
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance10 of 13typically saves 12 of 13
  • I. SorokinDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    23
    Saves
    22
    Sv%
    .957
    xGA
    2.4
    GSAx
    +1.4
    Dangerous
    0/1
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.4typical +0.3
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance22 of 22typically saves 21 of 22

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: Chicago Blackhawks · New York Islanders