Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
final

PHI1

Philadelphia Flyers

BOS5

Boston Bruins

Saturday, October 10

Final · TD Garden

The short version

What happened

The Bruins roll past the Flyers

Pavel Zacha opened the scoring midway through the first. Five different Bruins scored.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Bruins win nine in ten. By our Swing measure, Fraser Minten had the best night of anyone.

What it means

  • SlumpThe Flyers haven’t won in six.
  • FinallyPavel Zacha scored his first goal of the season.
  • The previewBoth of the preview’s calls held.

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 (53% for Philadelphia), and it went Boston’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+5 points51%
Who's been playing+2 points53%
Back-to-back0 points53%
Our chance for Philadelphia the morning of the game53%
Tonight's lineup+1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known54%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

We had this close to even (47% for Boston), and Boston came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−5 points49%
Who's been playing−2 points47%
Back-to-back0 points47%
Our chance for Boston the morning of the game47%
Tonight's lineup−1 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known46%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. 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

    The Bruins will hunt a mismatch

    At home, the Bruins have sent Peterka’s line (Peterka, Khusnutdinov and Minten) out against opponents’ third lines 41% of the time, when no line matching would give about 27%. That’s Marco Sturm chasing an easier matchup for the team’s scorers. Tonight the Flyers’ third line is Bunting, Acciari and Cates.

    The call The Bruins’ L2 (Peterka, Khusnutdinov and Minten) spends at least 41% of its 5-on-5 time against the Flyers’ third line.

    Held up

    Boston’s L2 (Peterka, Khusnutdinov, Minten) spent 84% of its 5-on-5 time against Philadelphia’s L3 (4:05 of 4:51), against a home habit of 41% and about 27% with no line matching.

    41%
    Coming in
    84%
    In this game
    27%
    With no line matching

  2. Before the game

    In close against from distance

    On shots from in close, Philadelphia ranks 16th in the league and Boston ranks 29th. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Flyers take a bigger share of their shots from within 20 feet than the Bruins.

    Held up

    On share of 5-on-5 shots from within 20 feet, Philadelphia had 27% and Boston 21%. Coming in, Philadelphia was at 31% and Boston at 29%.

    PHI 31% · BOS 29%
    Coming in
    PHI 27% · BOS 21%
    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: 87 held up, 11 partly, 62 didn’t happen, out of 160 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.

Boston earned this one

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

12%
Philadelphia: 7 wins, plus half of the 9 ties
88%
Boston: 83 wins, plus half of the 9 ties

Philadelphia had 26 chances worth 1.2 expected goals. Boston had 41 chances worth 3.7 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.

PhiladelphiaBoston
Goals15
Shots on goal1532
Expected goals2.95.6
Shot attempts at 5-on-51840
Power plays0 of 20 of 1

Swing

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

The biggest swings: F. Minten +0.9, D. Pastrnak +0.8 and C. Mittelstadt +0.7.

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
  • T. SanheimOff night
    Defense
    18:34
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.5
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.2
  • J. DrysdaleOff night
    Defense
    17:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.9
  • C. DvorakOff night
    Center
    12:52
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.7
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 13typical 53%
  • N. SeelerDid his job
    Defense
    11:59
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots4typical 1
  • O. TippettMixed night
    Right wing
    11:16
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.8
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.6typical 2.2
  • T. FoersterOff night
    Right wing
    11:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.5typical 7.2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.7typical 2.2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
Show 9 more Philadelphia playersHide the other Philadelphia players
  • S. BenoitMixed night
    Defense
    10:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −3
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • M. BuntingOff night
    Left wing
    10:41
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 5.8
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 2
  • S. CouturierOff night
    Center
    10:28
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.6
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won7 of 16typical 55%
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.2
  • T. ZegrasDid his job
    Center
    10:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.5typical 7.0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.6typical 2.4
  • P. MartoneDid his job
    Right wing
    10:02
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play2.6typical 6.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.3
  • N. AcciariDid his job
    Center
    9:12
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 8typical 54%
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.2typical 2.4
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 1
  • D. BarkeyDid his job
    Center
    8:30
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.9
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.0
  • G. WilsonDid his job
    Left wing
    8:20
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits5typical 1
  • N. CatesDid his job
    Left wing
    6:59
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.0
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
    • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo 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: 27 ✓, 3 ≈, 22 ✕.

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. VladarOff night
    Goalie
    56:58
    Shots
    31
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .839
    xGA
    3.7
    GSAx
    −1.3
    Dangerous
    2/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.3typical +0.6
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance24 of 27typically saves 25 of 27
  • J. SwaymanDid his job
    Goalie
    56:28
    Shots
    13
    Saves
    12
    Sv%
    .923
    xGA
    1.2
    GSAx
    +0.2
    Dangerous
    1/1
    • ≈Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.2typical +0.9
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓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: Philadelphia Flyers · Boston Bruins