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

NYR1

New York Rangers

WSH3

Washington Capitals

Friday, October 9

Final · Capital One Arena

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 (48% for NY Rangers), and it went Washington’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+2 points48%
Back-to-back0 points48%
Our chance for NY Rangers the morning of the game48%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known48%

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 (52% for Washington), and Washington came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−2 points52%
Back-to-back0 points52%
Our chance for Washington the morning of the game52%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known52%

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, 2 held up, 0 partly did, and 0 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Special teams lean toward the Rangers

    The Rangers’ power play is one of the league’s best (5th: 8.3 expected goals per 60), and the Capitals’ kill ranks 27th. The Capitals need to stay out of the box.

    The call The Rangers’ power play creates at least their usual 8.3 expected goals per 60.

    Held up

    NY Rangers’s power play created 9.7 expected goals per 60 in 4:53 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 8.3, and scored 1 goal.

    8.3 per 60
    Coming in
    9.7 per 60
    In this game
    7.5 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Rangers feed on mistakes, and the Capitals make them

    The Rangers turn stolen pucks into chances (10th in the league: 7.6% of their chances come right after winning the puck), and the Capitals are 32nd at avoiding breakdowns. A sloppy pass or two could cost the Capitals.

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

    Held up

    17.6% of NY Rangers’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 7.6%.

    7.6%
    Coming in
    17.6%
    In this game
    7.3%
    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, NY Rangers wins 42 and Washington 58, close to a coin flip.

42%
NY Rangers: 34 wins, plus half of the 17 ties
58%
Washington: 49 wins, plus half of the 17 ties

NY Rangers had 34 chances worth 2.9 expected goals. Washington had 36 chances worth 3.3 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.

NY RangersWashington
Goals13
Shots on goal2227
Expected goals2.93.3
Shot attempts at 5-on-53238
Power plays1 of 30 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: B. Jenner +1.3, R. Leonard +0.9 and A. Lafrenière +0.8.

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
  • A. FoxDid his job
    Defense
    23:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.7typical 7.5
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.0typical 2.3
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.6typical 2.1
  • J. MillerOff night
    Center
    20:55
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.1typical 7.5
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill15.3typical 7.0
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 13typical 56%
  • V. GavrikovDid his job
    Defense
    20:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.6typical 7.1
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.2
  • P. DorofeyevDid his job
    Right wing
    19:33
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.7typical 8.2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.4typical 2.0
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
  • M. PetterssonRough night

    No points, and 81% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    19:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.1typical 7.0
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.1typical 2.7
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • M. ZibanejadDid his job
    Center
    19:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.7typical 7.5
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.0typical 6.6
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won13 of 20typical 55%
Show 9 more NY Rangers playersHide the other NY Rangers players
  • S. DurziRough night

    No points, and 82% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    18:52
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.6
  • A. LafrenièreDid his job
    Left wing
    18:46
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.7typical 7.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.5typical 2.2
  • B. SchneiderDid his job
    Defense
    17:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.0typical 7.0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 2
  • W. CuylleMixed night
    Left wing
    16:38
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.6typical 6.7
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 4
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • T. KartyeMixed night
    Left wing
    15:26
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.8typical 6.7
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • N. LabaMixed night
    Center
    13:42
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.6typical 6.1
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won6 of 10typical 49%
  • E. TolvanenMixed night
    Right wing
    11:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.3typical 6.9
    • ✓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-53.2typical 2.5
  • C. BeaudoinDid his job
    Center
    10:56
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
  • J. ChmelarDid his job
    Right wing
    9:38
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 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: 44 ✓, 9 ≈, 27 ✕.

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.

  • D. GarandDid his job
    Goalie
    29:45
    Shots
    12
    Saves
    11
    Sv%
    .917
    xGA
    1.6
    GSAx
    +0.6
    Dangerous
    3/4
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.6typical +0.0
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance8 of 8typically saves 8 of 8
  • I. ShesterkinDid his job
    Goalie
    28:20
    Shots
    14
    Saves
    13
    Sv%
    .929
    xGA
    1.8
    GSAx
    +0.8
    Dangerous
    4/4
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.8typical +0.7
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ≈Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance9 of 10typically saves 10 of 10
  • L. ThompsonBig night

    21 saves on 22 shots, +1.9 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    22
    Saves
    21
    Sv%
    .955
    xGA
    2.9
    GSAx
    +1.9
    Dangerous
    1/1
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.9typical +1.0
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 21typically saves 20 of 21

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: New York Rangers · Washington Capitals