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

PIT2

Pittsburgh Penguins

CBJ3

Columbus Blue Jackets

Friday, October 9

Final in a shootout · Nationwide 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 (47% for Pittsburgh), and it went Columbus’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances0 points47%
Back-to-back0 points47%
Our chance for Pittsburgh the morning of the game47%
Tonight's lineup−1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known45%

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 (53% for Columbus), and Columbus came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances0 points53%
Back-to-back0 points53%
Our chance for Columbus the morning of the game53%
Tonight's lineup+2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known55%

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, 1 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Something has to give

    The Penguins are 3rd in the league for chance quality (a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot); the Blue Jackets are 8th at preventing dangerous shots. Our lean: the Penguins’ chance quality wins out.

    The call The Penguins’ chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Blue Jackets.

    Held up

    On chance quality, Pittsburgh had 8.0% a shot. The league average is 6.3% a shot, and they came in at 6.8% a shot.

    6.8% a shot
    Coming in
    8.0% a shot
    In this game
    6.3% a shot
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Penguins kill penalties far better than the Blue Jackets

    On penalty kill, Pittsburgh ranks 6th in the league and Columbus ranks 31st. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Penguins’ penalty kill allows less per 60 than the Blue Jackets’.

    Didn’t happen

    On expected goals allowed per 60 on the penalty kill, Pittsburgh had 7.3 per 60 and Columbus 0.0 per 60. Coming in, Pittsburgh was at 7.0 per 60 and Columbus at 8.6 per 60.

    PIT 7.0 per 60 · CBJ 8.6 per 60
    Coming in
    PIT 7.3 per 60 · CBJ 0.0 per 60
    In this game

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.

Columbus earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Columbus wins 81.

19%
Pittsburgh: 13 wins, plus half of the 12 ties
81%
Columbus: 75 wins, plus half of the 12 ties

Pittsburgh had 27 chances worth 2.3 expected goals. Columbus had 53 chances worth 4.3 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.

PittsburghColumbus
Goals23
Shots on goal2245
Expected goals3.15.1
Shot attempts at 5-on-54061
Power plays0 of 20 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: D. Severson +1.3, C. Coyle +0.8 and M. Olivier +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
  • E. KarlssonOff night
    Defense
    24:50
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.4–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.4typical 6.1
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
  • R. RakellOff night
    Right wing
    20:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–1.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.5
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.16
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
  • D. CarlileOff night
    Defense
    20:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    5
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.2typical 6.3
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.04
  • S. CrosbyRough night

    No points, and 70% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    19:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–1.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.4
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.1typical 2.6
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 13typical 55%
  • S. GirardMixed night
    Defense
    19:28
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–1.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.05
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.1typical 2.8
  • K. LetangMixed night

    No points, and 84% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

    Defense
    19:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
Show 10 more Pittsburgh playersHide the other Pittsburgh players
  • T. van RiemsdykRough night

    No points, and 77% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    19:08
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.2typical 6.3
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-56.2typical 2.3
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
  • K. KorczakMixed night
    Defense
    19:05
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.4typical 2.0
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
  • B. RustMixed night
    Right wing
    18:21
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–1.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.2typical 6.0
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • E. MalkinDid his job
    Center
    17:30
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.3
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.8
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.26typical 0.11
  • B. KindelDid his job
    Center
    17:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.65typical 0.11
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.4typical 2.6
  • E. ChinakhovDid his job
    Right wing
    14:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.9
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 4
    • ≈Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.11typical 0.13
  • T. NovakMixed night
    Center
    14:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.8
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.18typical 0.11
  • C. DewarDid his job
    Center
    13:35
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.1typical 5.9
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 1
  • B. LizotteMixed night
    Center
    13:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.8typical 5.9
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.3
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won4 of 15typical 46%
  • V. KoivunenMixed night
    Right wing
    13:13
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.1typical 2.3
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: 41 ✓, 8 ≈, 28 ✕.

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. Murashov★ Huge night

    43 saves on 45 shots, +3.1 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    65:00
    Shots
    45
    Saves
    43
    Sv%
    .956
    xGA
    5.1
    GSAx
    +3.1
    Dangerous
    8/8
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+3.1typical -0.4
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance8 of 8typically saves 6 of 8
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance35 of 37typically saves 34 of 37
  • C. TalbotDid his job
    Goalie
    65:00
    Shots
    22
    Saves
    20
    Sv%
    .909
    xGA
    3.1
    GSAx
    +1.1
    Dangerous
    4/5
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.1typical -0.6
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 5typically saves 3 of 5
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance16 of 17typically saves 16 of 17

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: Pittsburgh Penguins · Columbus Blue Jackets