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

SJS3

San Jose Sharks

STL2

St. Louis Blues

Thursday, October 8

Final in overtime · Enterprise Center

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 (40% for San Jose), and San Jose came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−6 points40%
Back-to-back0 points40%
Our chance for San Jose the morning of the game40%
Tonight's lineup−4 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known36%

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 (60% for St. Louis), and it went San Jose’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+6 points60%
Back-to-back0 points60%
Our chance for St. Louis the morning of the game60%
Tonight's lineup+4 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known64%

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 3 calls the preview made, 2 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Hofer’s rough record against the Sharks is a coincidence

    6 starts against the Sharks since 2023-24, a .877 save percentage. Against everyone else, .914. Fans love a pattern like this, but we checked three seasons of them and they predicted nothing. Expect the usual Hofer.

    The call If Hofer starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .914 than to his .877 against the Sharks.

    Didn’t happen

    J. Hofer stopped 24 of 27 shots (.889), against his usual .914 and his .877 against this team before tonight.

    .914
    Coming in
    .889
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Blues should get some good looks

    The Blues make their shots count (6th in the league: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot), and the Sharks are 23rd at preventing dangerous shots. Expect the Blues to get some real chances.

    The call The Blues’ average shot has at least their usual 6.7% chance of going in.

    Held up

    St. Louis’s average shot had a 10.1% chance of going in, against their usual 6.7%.

    Called it, and then some. St. Louis’s shots at 5-on-5 were more dangerous than usual: a 10.1% chance of scoring on the average shot, against their usual 6.7% (league average 6.3%). A team strays this far about once every 80 games.

    6.7% a shot
    Coming in
    10.1% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  3. Before the game

    Don’t blink and you still might miss the shots

    San Jose plays some of the league’s slowest games (29th for pace: 78.5 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined), and so does St. Louis (28th). We think this one is even quieter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at fewer than 78.5 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, slower than either team’s usual.

    Held up

    The game ran at 76.7 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the slower team’s usual 78.5 and a league average of 81.7.

    78.5 per 60
    Coming in
    76.7 per 60
    In this game
    81.7 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.

St. Louis usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, St. Louis wins 73. The goals went the other way.

27%
San Jose: 19 wins, plus half of the 15 ties
73%
St. Louis: 66 wins, plus half of the 15 ties

San Jose had 37 chances worth 2.4 expected goals. St. Louis had 37 chances worth 3.8 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.

San JoseSt. Louis
Goals32
Shots on goal2726
Expected goals2.54.0
Shot attempts at 5-on-53947
Power plays0 of 40 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: M. McTavish +1.0, M. Misa +0.9 and T. Toffoli +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
  • J. TroubaDid his job
    Defense
    23:43
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–1.6
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.8typical 7.1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
  • D. NurseDid his job

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 13, so it counts for more.

    Defense
    22:38
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.8typical 7.6
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
  • A. WennbergOff night
    Center
    20:00
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.2typical 6.7
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 7.2
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • D. OrlovRough night

    No points, and 73% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    18:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.3
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • M. MarchmentMixed night
    Left wing
    18:07
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.0
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.7typical 6.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.3
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
  • K. SherwoodDid his job
    Left wing
    17:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    10
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.0typical 6.9
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.1typical 6.3
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits10typical 8
Show 11 more San Jose playersHide the other San Jose players
  • M. KesselringOff night
    Defense
    16:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.04
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.6typical 2.5
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.4
  • L. CagnoniOff night
    Defense
    16:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.6typical 6.6
  • I. ChernyshovRough night

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

    Left wing
    15:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.9typical 2.5
  • T. ToffoliBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Center
    15:51
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.7
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.7typical 7.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
  • S. DickinsonDid his job
    Defense
    15:43
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.2
  • W. SmithMixed night

    No points, and 72% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

    Center
    15:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.0
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.3typical 6.4
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
  • M. MisaMixed night
    Center
    15:14
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.8typical 2.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won5 of 11typical 46%
  • C. GrafDid his job
    Right wing
    14:16
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.3typical 6.3
  • T. DellandreaDid his job
    Center
    12:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • Z. OstapchukMixed night

    No points, and 75% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

    Center
    12:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.1typical 6.5
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
  • B. GoodrowDid his job
    Center
    10:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.2typical 6.8
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 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: 42 ✓, 5 ≈, 28 ✕.

In net

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

  • A. NedeljkovicBig night

    24 saves on 26 shots, +1.9 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    61:03
    Shots
    26
    Saves
    24
    Sv%
    .923
    xGA
    4.0
    GSAx
    +1.9
    Dangerous
    4/4
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.9typical +0.1
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 22typically saves 21 of 22
  • J. HoferOff night
    Goalie
    60:52
    Shots
    27
    Saves
    24
    Sv%
    .889
    xGA
    2.5
    GSAx
    −0.5
    Dangerous
    4/7
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.5typical +0.5
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 20typically saves 19 of 20

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: San Jose Sharks · St. Louis Blues