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

TOR3

Toronto Maple Leafs

VGK4

Vegas Golden Knights

Thursday, October 8

Final in a shootout · T-Mobile Arena

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Toronto only a 19% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−27 points19%
Back-to-back0 points19%
Our chance for Toronto the morning of the game19%
Tonight's lineup−2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known17%

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 Vegas a 81% chance, and Vegas delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+27 points81%
Back-to-back0 points81%
Our chance for Vegas the morning of the game81%
Tonight's lineup+3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known83%

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

  1. Before the game

    Don’t judge the Maple Leafs by last season

    Over this season and last, the Maple Leafs rank 24th for shot volume. This season alone they’re 14th (56.8 per 60, against 54.1 per 60 blended), shooting more. We think tonight looks more like this season than the old Maple Leafs.

    The call The Maple Leafs’ shot volume is better than their blended level of 54.1 per 60.

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60, Toronto had 56.6 per 60, against 54.1 per 60 over this season and last and 56.8 per 60 this season alone.

    54.1 per 60
    Coming in
    56.6 per 60
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    Bobrovsky’s record against the Golden Knights is a coincidence

    Bobrovsky has a .935 save percentage in 6 starts against the Golden Knights since 2023-24, and .901 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 Bobrovsky.

    The call If Bobrovsky starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .901 than to his .935 against the Golden Knights.

    Didn’t happen

    S. Bobrovsky stopped 40 of 43 shots (.930), against his usual .901 and his .935 against this team before tonight.

    .901
    Coming in
    .930
    In this game

  3. Before the game

    The Golden Knights’ power play has a target

    The Golden Knights’ power play is 2nd in the league (9.0 expected goals per 60), and the Maple Leafs’ kill is 31st. Every trip to the box hurts the Maple Leafs more than most.

    The call The Golden Knights’ power play creates at least their usual 9.0 expected goals per 60.

    Held up

    Vegas’s power play created 9.8 expected goals per 60 in 8:00 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 9.0, and scored 0 goals.

    9.0 per 60
    Coming in
    9.8 per 60
    In this game
    7.6 per 60
    League average

  4. Before the game

    Quality over quantity for the Golden Knights

    The Golden Knights make their shots count (7th in the league: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot), and the Maple Leafs are 22nd at preventing dangerous shots. Expect the Golden Knights to get some real chances.

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

    Didn’t happen

    Vegas’s average shot had a 5.5% chance of going in, against their usual 6.7%.

    6.7% a shot
    Coming in
    5.5% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    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.

Vegas earned this one

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

12%
Toronto: 8 wins, plus half of the 9 ties
88%
Vegas: 83 wins, plus half of the 9 ties

Toronto had 29 chances worth 1.6 expected goals. Vegas had 55 chances worth 4.2 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.

TorontoVegas
Goals34
Shots on goal2443
Expected goals2.65.1
Shot attempts at 5-on-54459
Power plays0 of 10 of 4

The shootout decides the result but is left out of every other number on this site.

Swing

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

The biggest swings: J. Eichel +2.0, M. Stone +1.4 and I. Barbashev +1.2.

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
  • D. RaddyshOff night
    Defense
    24:45
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.2typical 7.1
    • ≈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-50.04typical 0.06
  • J. McCabeMixed night
    Defense
    23:32
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.7typical 7.2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 2.2
  • C. TanevMixed night
    Defense
    22:10
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    4
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill13.0typical 7.0
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.3typical 2.4
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots4typical 2
  • A. MatthewsOff night
    Center
    21:32
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.3typical 7.2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.10typical 0.19
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
  • M. RiellyMixed night
    Defense
    20:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 2.3
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • W. NylanderDid his job
    Right wing
    20:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.0
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play7.4typical 6.7
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 4
Show 9 more Toronto playersHide the other Toronto players
  • K. MarchenkoMixed night
    Right wing
    18:20
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.4typical 7.1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.15
  • J. RoslovicOff night
    Center
    17:32
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.15
    • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo little time to judge
  • N. PaulMixed night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 7, so it counts for more.

    Left wing
    17:05
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.2
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won4 of 8typical 51%
  • T. StecherDid his job
    Defense
    16:35
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.5typical 7.1
  • C. SissonsMixed night
    Center
    15:47
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.7typical 6.3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
  • J. TavaresMixed night
    Center
    15:26
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.3typical 7.1
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 13typical 57%
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.12
  • B. DuhaimeDid his job
    Left wing
    12:07
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill13.4typical 7.1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.9typical 2.2
  • T. BluegerDid his job
    Center
    11:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill13.3typical 6.4
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won6 of 11typical 48%
  • B. GroulxMixed night
    Center
    6:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 1
    • –Faceoffs Relied onToo 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: 40 ✓, 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.

  • S. BobrovskyBig night

    40 saves on 43 shots, +2.1 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    65:00
    Shots
    43
    Saves
    40
    Sv%
    .930
    xGA
    5.1
    GSAx
    +2.1
    Dangerous
    6/7
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+2.1typical -0.1
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance6 of 7typically saves 5 of 7
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance34 of 36typically saves 33 of 36
  • A. HillDid his job
    Goalie
    64:40
    Shots
    24
    Saves
    21
    Sv%
    .875
    xGA
    2.6
    GSAx
    −0.4
    Dangerous
    3/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.4typical -0.3
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 5typically saves 3 of 5
    • ✓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: Toronto Maple Leafs · Vegas Golden Knights