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

SEA6

Seattle Kraken

DET3

Detroit Red Wings

Friday, October 9

Final · Little Caesars Arena

Our pre-game read

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

We gave Seattle a 38% chance, and Seattle proved us wrong.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−8 points38%
Back-to-back0 points38%
Our chance for Seattle the morning of the game38%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known38%

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 Detroit a 62% chance, but Seattle had other ideas.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+8 points62%
Back-to-back0 points62%
Our chance for Detroit the morning of the game62%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known62%

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

  1. Before the game

    The Red Wings aren’t Daccord’s kryptonite

    Daccord has a .870 save percentage in 6 starts against the Red Wings since 2023-24, and .911 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 Daccord.

    The call If Daccord starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .911 than to his .870 against the Red Wings.

    Can’t judge

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

  2. Before the game

    Special teams lean toward the Red Wings

    The Red Wings’ power play is one of the league’s best (4th: 8.6 expected goals per 60), and the Kraken’s kill ranks 28th. The Kraken need to stay out of the box.

    The call The Red Wings’ power play creates at least their usual 8.6 expected goals per 60.

    Didn’t happen

    Detroit’s power play created 4.5 expected goals per 60 in 3:05 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 8.6, and scored 1 goal.

    8.6 per 60
    Coming in
    4.5 per 60
    In this game
    7.5 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, Seattle wins 45 and Detroit 55, close to a coin flip.

45%
Seattle: 37 wins, plus half of the 16 ties
55%
Detroit: 46 wins, plus half of the 16 ties

Seattle had 38 chances worth 3.6 expected goals. Detroit had 56 chances worth 4.0 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.

SeattleDetroit
Goals63
Shots on goal2440
Expected goals3.74.0
Shot attempts at 5-on-54275
Power plays1 of 31 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: B. Catton +1.6, B. Meyers +1.2 and M. Brandsegg-Nygård +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
  • B. MontourBig night

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

    Defense
    26:03
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–1.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play21.2typical 5.6
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.06
  • V. DunnBig night

    A power-play goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 8, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Defense
    21:51
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.1
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
  • A. LarssonDid his job
    Defense
    20:39
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.5typical 7.6
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots4typical 2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • M. BeniersDid his job
    Center
    17:41
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.3
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play21.6typical 6.9
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won8 of 15typical 46%
  • C. StephensonMixed night
    Center
    16:54
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won9 of 17typical 55%
    • –Power play Relied onToo little time to judge
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • M. SamoskevichBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Right wing
    16:04
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–1.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-55.8typical 2.2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.28typical 0.15
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.4typical 2.5
Show 10 more Seattle playersHide the other Seattle players
  • B. McMannDid his job
    Center
    15:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.6
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 4
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • J. EberleOff night
    Right wing
    15:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.12
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-50.7typical 2.1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • F. GaudreauBig night

    2 goals.

    Center
    15:36
    G
    2
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.6typical 7.2
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won6 of 9typical 46%
  • B. CattonBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Center
    14:33
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.6
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.27typical 0.10
  • K. KakkoDid his job
    Right wing
    13:50
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play16.1typical 5.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.5typical 2.2
  • B. MeyersBig night

    A goal, 2 assists.

    Center
    13:37
    G
    1
    A
    2
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.7typical 7.0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.2typical 2.2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.60typical 0.10
  • R. WintertonMixed night

    2 assists. A good scoresheet, but his usual jobs went quiet.

    Center
    13:22
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.11
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.0typical 2.3
  • J. MahuraOff night
    Defense
    12:26
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–1.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • S. WrightDid his job
    Center
    12:21
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.0typical 5.6
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.10typical 0.10
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • J. McCannDid his job
    Left wing
    12:01
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.0typical 2.3
    • –Power play 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: 38 ✓, 8 ≈, 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.

  • P. GrubauerDid his job
    Goalie
    59:55
    Shots
    40
    Saves
    37
    Sv%
    .925
    xGA
    4.0
    GSAx
    +1.0
    Dangerous
    2/3
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.0typical +0.1
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance35 of 37typically saves 35 of 37
  • J. GibsonRough night

    Pulled after 5 goals, 10 saves on 15 shots, −2.8 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    34:05
    Shots
    15
    Saves
    10
    Sv%
    .667
    xGA
    2.2
    GSAx
    −2.8
    Dangerous
    2/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-2.8typical +0.2
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance8 of 11typically saves 10 of 11
  • D. TarasovOff night
    Goalie
    25:55
    Shots
    9
    Saves
    8
    Sv%
    .889
    xGA
    1.5
    GSAx
    +0.5
    Dangerous
    0/0
    • –Saving more than expected Too few shots to judge
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance8 of 9typically saves 9 of 9

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: Seattle Kraken · Detroit Red Wings