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

ANA5

Anaheim Ducks

WPG1

Winnipeg Jets

Friday, October 9

Final · Canada Life Centre

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 (55% for Anaheim), and Anaheim came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+9 points55%
Back-to-back0 points55%
Our chance for Anaheim the morning of the game55%
Tonight's lineup+2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known57%

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 (45% for Winnipeg), and it went Anaheim’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−9 points45%
Back-to-back0 points45%
Our chance for Winnipeg the morning of the game45%
Tonight's lineup−2 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known43%

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

  1. Before the game

    Expect Anaheim to fire from everywhere

    Anaheim ranks 9th of 32 for shot volume (59.8 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5); Winnipeg ranks 24th for shot suppression.

    Didn’t happen

    Anaheim took 44.3 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 (adjusted for score and venue), against their usual 59.8.

    59.8 per 60
    Coming in
    44.3 per 60
    In this game
    56.4 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    Two of the league’s busiest games meet

    Anaheim’s games average 86.1 unblocked shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined (2nd of 32 for pace); Winnipeg’s average 83.8 (8th).

    Didn’t happen

    The game ran at 64.4 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the two teams’ usual 84.9 and a league average of 82.0.

    84.9 per 60
    Coming in
    64.4 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.

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.

Anaheim earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Anaheim wins 60.

60%
Anaheim: 50 wins, plus half of the 20 ties
40%
Winnipeg: 30 wins, plus half of the 20 ties

Anaheim had 27 chances worth 2.6 expected goals. Winnipeg had 31 chances worth 2.1 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.

AnaheimWinnipeg
Goals51
Shots on goal1716
Expected goals2.72.2
Shot attempts at 5-on-53138
Power plays0 of 10 of 4

Swing

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

The biggest swings: T. Washe +1.5, J. Malott +1.5 and J. Caulfield +1.4.

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
  • J. LaCombeDid his job
    Defense
    27:02
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.8typical 6.7
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.2typical 6.7
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.06
  • N. WarrenOff night
    Defense
    24:12
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • P. MintyukovMixed night
    Defense
    21:24
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    5
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.3typical 6.9
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.18typical 0.05
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.6
  • A. KillornDid his job
    Left wing
    18:42
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.1typical 6.5
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.5
  • C. GauthierOff night
    Left wing
    18:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.4typical 6.6
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 5
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.02typical 0.14
  • T. MitchellDid his job
    Defense
    17:31
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
Show 12 more Anaheim playersHide the other Anaheim players
  • R. PoehlingMixed night
    Center
    17:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.0typical 6.8
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won3 of 10typical 45%
  • B. SenneckeMixed night

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

    Right wing
    17:03
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.6typical 6.8
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.8
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.16
  • M. GranlundBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Center
    16:31
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.4typical 7.0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.5typical 6.4
    • –Faceoffs Relied onToo little time to judge
  • L. CarlssonMixed night
    Center
    16:25
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play11.2typical 7.2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.05typical 0.14
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won7 of 9typical 45%
  • T. WasheBig night

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

    Center
    15:14
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill2.5typical 6.2
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 11typical 55%
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • T. LuneauOff night
    Defense
    14:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.4–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.04
  • T. HindsOff night
    Defense
    13:48
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • A. GreerDid his job
    Left wing
    12:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.13typical 0.12
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • N. NesterenkoBig night

    A shorthanded goal.

    Center
    11:58
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 3
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.3typical 2.3
  • S. ColangeloBig night

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

    Right wing
    10:35
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • J. CaulfieldBig night

    A goal, 1 assist.

    Right wing
    9:34
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 1
  • J. MalottBig night

    2 assists.

    Left wing
    9:26
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 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: 33 ✓, 7 ≈, 35 ✕.

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.

  • L. DostalDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    16
    Saves
    15
    Sv%
    .938
    xGA
    2.2
    GSAx
    +1.2
    Dangerous
    3/3
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.2typical +0.2
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance12 of 13typically saves 12 of 13
  • C. StevensonOff night
    Goalie
    56:08
    Shots
    16
    Saves
    12
    Sv%
    .750
    xGA
    2.7
    GSAx
    −1.3
    Dangerous
    1/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.3typical +1.1
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance1 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance11 of 12typically saves 11 of 12

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: Anaheim Ducks · Winnipeg Jets