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

COL7

Colorado Avalanche

CGY3

Calgary Flames

Thursday, October 8

Final · Scotiabank Saddledome

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Colorado a 66% chance, and Colorado delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+27 points73%
Back-to-back−7 points66%
Our chance for Colorado the morning of the game66%
Tonight's lineup+10 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known76%

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 Calgary only a 34% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−27 points27%
Back-to-back+7 points34%
Our chance for Calgary the morning of the game34%
Tonight's lineup−10 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known24%

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

    The matchup inside the matchup

    The Flames are 4th in the league for shot volume (64.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5); the Avalanche are 8th at keeping shots away. We think the Flames still get theirs.

    The call The Flames take more than the league-average 56.3 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 against the Avalanche.

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts, Calgary had 58.9 per 60. The league average is 56.3 per 60, and they came in at 64.2 per 60.

    64.2 per 60
    Coming in
    58.9 per 60
    In this game
    56.3 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Don’t count on Blackwood to stand on his head again

    Blackwood has a .939 save percentage in 5 starts against the Flames since 2023-24, and .907 against everyone else. 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 Blackwood.

    The call If Blackwood starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .907 than to his .939 against the Flames.

    Can’t judge

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

  3. Before the game

    The Avalanche feed on mistakes, and the Flames make them

    The Flames give up more dangerous chances after losing the puck than most (30th at avoiding breakdowns), and the Avalanche pounce: 3rd for chances off turnovers.

    The call The Avalanche get at least their usual 7.7% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Didn’t happen

    3.3% of Colorado’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 7.7%.

    7.7%
    Coming in
    3.3%
    In this game
    7.3%
    League average

  4. Before the game

    Expect a track meet

    Colorado plays some of the league’s fastest games (1st for pace: 88.6 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined), and so does Calgary (3rd). We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 88.6 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Held up

    The game ran at 97.4 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the faster team’s usual 88.6 and a league average of 82.0.

    88.6 per 60
    Coming in
    97.4 per 60
    In this game
    82.0 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.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Colorado wins 55 and Calgary 45, close to a coin flip.

55%
Colorado: 46 wins, plus half of the 18 ties
45%
Calgary: 36 wins, plus half of the 18 ties

Colorado had 45 chances worth 2.8 expected goals. Calgary had 44 chances worth 2.5 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.

ColoradoCalgary
Goals73
Shots on goal3029
Expected goals2.82.5
Shot attempts at 5-on-55855
Power plays0 of 30 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: M. Backlund +1.2, Y. Sharangovich +1.1 and K. Bahl +1.1.

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
  • C. MakarBig night

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

    Defense
    22:17
    G
    2
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.5typical 7.1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.08
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
  • J. MansonDid his job
    Defense
    20:27
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.9typical 6.3
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.16typical 0.06
  • B. BurnsOff night
    Defense
    20:00
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 6
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.8typical 2.9
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.05typical 0.05
  • D. ToewsBig night

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

    Defense
    18:54
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.05
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 3.1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • B. KulakBig night

    2 assists.

    Defense
    18:42
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–1.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • N. MacKinnonBig night

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

    Center
    18:42
    G
    1
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.2typical 7.3
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 5
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.26typical 0.18
Show 11 more Colorado playersHide the other Colorado players
  • A. LehkonenOff night
    Left wing
    17:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.9typical 5.2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.07typical 0.15
  • M. NecasMixed night
    Center
    17:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.3typical 7.0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 3
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.9typical 3.1
  • N. KadriOff night
    Center
    17:14
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.8typical 7.0
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.4
  • N. JuulsenDid his job
    Defense
    16:35
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • T. HughesDid his job
    Right wing
    16:26
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.1
    Shots
    6
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 3
  • B. NelsonOff night
    Center
    15:35
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.9typical 5.7
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.05typical 0.11
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 3.0
  • G. LandeskogDid his job
    Left wing
    14:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 3.1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.16typical 0.14
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • N. RoyDid his job
    Center
    14:03
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 9typical 53%
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.27typical 0.11
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • J. SchwartzBig night

    2 goals, 80% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Left wing
    13:51
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • P. KellyDid his job
    Center
    11:34
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.4typical 1.9
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • Z. L'HeureuxDid his job
    Left wing
    10:56
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.29typical 0.10
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 ✓, 11 ≈, 22 ✕.

In net

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

  • S. WedgewoodMixed night
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    29
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .897
    xGA
    2.5
    GSAx
    −0.5
    Dangerous
    3/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.5typical +1.0
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ≈Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance23 of 25typically saves 24 of 25
  • D. CooleyRough night

    23 saves on 30 shots, −4.2 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    23
    Sv%
    .767
    xGA
    2.8
    GSAx
    −4.2
    Dangerous
    3/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-4.2typical +0.6
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 26typically saves 24 of 26

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: Colorado Avalanche · Calgary Flames