Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
final

EDM3

Edmonton Oilers

SJS1

San Jose Sharks

Saturday, October 10

Final · SAP Center at San Jose

The Oilers beat the Sharks

Mattias Ekholm opened the scoring midway through the first. Vasily Podkolzin scored the winner early in the third.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Oilers win about seven in ten. By our Swing measure, Evan Bouchard had the best night of anyone. The Sharks tried a line they hadn’t used before: Macklin Celebrini, Mason Marchment and Will Smith.

EDMSJS

20Shots on goal20

2.6Expected goals1.5

34Shot attempts at 5-on-535

0 of 2Power plays0 of 1

What it means

  • StreakFour straight wins for the Oilers.
  • StreakConnor McDavid has a point in every game this season.
  • FinallyMattias Ekholm scored his first goal of the season.
  • Keep an eye onWhether the Sharks keep that line together at home against Boston on Tuesday.

Run it back

Edmonton earned this one

62 Edmonton19 even19 San Jose

Played out 100 times with these chances, Edmonton wins 71.

Edmonton had 32 chances worth 2.6 expected goals. San Jose had 32 chances worth 1.5 expected goals.

How the replays work

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. 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.

How it unfolded

Every shot on goal or wide of the net, in game time. Press play, or tap the chart to stop at a moment and see who was on the ice.

Show the game as
Final

Loading the game…

What the preview said

Of the 4 calls the preview made, 3 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

Our win chance, kept hidden until the final

64%for Edmonton to win

Edmonton delivered.

  1. Start at even
    50%
  2. Home iceSan Jose were at home. Over the last three seasons, home teams won about 54% of games.
    −446%
  3. Recent chancesLately, Edmonton have outchanced their opponents by 0.37 expected goals a game, and San Jose have been outchanced by 0.48 expected goals a game. The latest games count most, and last season still counts a little.
    +1763%
  4. Who’s been playingWe look at who each team dressed in their last game and compare those players with the ones who played in the games behind the rating above. San Jose’s last lineup was weaker than usual (someone important out, or a call-up in), so their recent chances flatter them a little. This way an injury counts straight away, instead of waiting for results to catch up.
    +669%
  5. Back-to-backNeither team played the night before, so nothing changes here.
    069%
  6. Tonight's lineupThe same check as “Who’s been playing”, done again with the players who actually dressed tonight. It only moves when someone came in or went out after the morning: here San Jose looked stronger, or Edmonton weaker, than we had expected.
    −564%
  7. Our final number
    64%

Worked out the morning of the game, from earlier games only. The preview could hint at it in words but never showed the number.

Our win chance, kept hidden until the final

36%for San Jose to win

It went the way we feared.

  1. Start at even
    50%
  2. Home iceSan Jose were at home. Over the last three seasons, home teams won about 54% of games.
    +454%
  3. Recent chancesLately, San Jose have been outchanced by 0.48 expected goals a game, and Edmonton have outchanced their opponents by 0.37 expected goals a game. The latest games count most, and last season still counts a little.
    −1737%
  4. Who’s been playingWe look at who each team dressed in their last game and compare those players with the ones who played in the games behind the rating above. San Jose’s last lineup was weaker than usual (someone important out, or a call-up in), so their recent chances flatter them a little. This way an injury counts straight away, instead of waiting for results to catch up.
    −631%
  5. Back-to-backNeither team played the night before, so nothing changes here.
    031%
  6. Tonight's lineupThe same check as “Who’s been playing”, done again with the players who actually dressed tonight. It only moves when someone came in or went out after the morning: here San Jose looked stronger, or Edmonton weaker, than we had expected.
    +536%
  7. Our final number
    36%

Worked out the morning of the game, from earlier games only. The preview could hint at it in words but never showed the number.

  1. Penalties could cost the Sharks

    The Sharks’ penalty kill sits 24th in the league, and the Oilers’ power play is 1st (9.5 expected goals per 60). Discipline matters more than usual for the Sharks tonight.

    The call The Oilers’ power play creates at least their usual 9.5 expected goals per 60.

    Held up

    Edmonton’s power play created 16.0 expected goals per 60 in 4:00 of 5-on-4 time, against their usual 9.5, and scored 0 goals.

    Called it, and then some. Edmonton’s power play created 16.0 expected goals per 60, against their usual 9.5 and a league average of 7.5. A team strays this far about once every 15 games.

    9.5 per 60
    Coming in
    16.0 per 60
    In this game
    7.5 per 60
    League average

  2. The Sharks’ goalie is in for some dangerous shots

    The Oilers make their shots count (10th in the league: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot), and the Sharks are 29th at preventing dangerous shots. Expect the Oilers to get some real chances.

    The call The Oilers’ average shot has at least their usual 6.6% chance of going in.

    Didn’t happen

    Edmonton’s average shot had a 5.9% chance of going in, against their usual 6.6%.

    6.6% a shot
    Coming in
    5.9% a shot
    In this game
    6.4% a shot
    League average

  3. Bodies will fly

    The Oilers have a hit score of 110 (8th in the league) and the Sharks 116 (4th), where 100 is league average after adjusting for each arena’s scorer. Keep your head up.

    The call The two teams’ combined hit score reaches their usual 113.

    Held up

    The two teams’ combined hit score was 137, against their usual 113 (100 is league average, after adjusting for the arena’s scorer).

    Called it, and then some. San Jose’s hit score in the close stretches of the game was 172, against their usual 116 (100 is league average, adjusted for the arena’s scorer). A team strays this far about once every 20 games.

    hit score 113
    Coming in
    hit score 137
    In this game
    hit score 100
    League average

  4. Don’t blink and you still might miss the shots

    Edmonton plays some of the league’s slowest games (24th for pace: 80.1 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined), and so does San Jose (29th). We think this one is even quieter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at fewer than 78.3 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, slower than either team’s usual.

    Held up

    The game ran at 62.3 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the slower team’s usual 78.3 and a league average of 81.7.

    78.3 per 60
    Coming in
    62.3 per 60
    In this game
    81.7 per 60
    League average

Read the full preview as it stood at puck drop. This season: 107 held up, 14 partly, 76 didn’t happen, out of 197. Track record.

How the calls are checked

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.

What it didn’t see coming

What the labels mean

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.

Swing

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

The biggest swings: E. Bouchard +1.5, C. McDavid +1.4 and L. Draisaitl +1.3.

Showhighlighting

Tap a player to see where his number came from.

How Swing is worked out

The number is roughly in goals: what he added to his team tonight, or cost it. 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.

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 actual goals for and against at half the weight of a chance. A player on a losing team can score well if his line held its own. Special teams: everything with him on the ice on the power play and penalty kill, chances and goals both ways (a shorthanded goal against counts against the power-play unit), compared with a league-average unit.

Company kept (counted inside 5-on-5): from every player’s 5-on-5 impact going into this season, 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
  • C. MurphyMixed night
    Defense
    24:23
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 3
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.7typical 2.2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • E. BouchardOff night
    Defense
    24:07
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play16.2typical 8.8
    • ✕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-50.00typical 0.08
  • C. McDavidDid his job
    Center
    24:04
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.2–0.2
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play16.1typical 9.1
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.7typical 3.0
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.74typical 0.18
  • R. SheaOff night
    Defense
    24:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕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-50.8typical 2.6
  • M. EkholmBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 15, 90% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Defense
    22:46
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.1
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.5typical 2.9
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.10typical 0.05
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.4typical 2.3
  • L. DraisaitlDid his job
    Center
    21:49
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.1
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play16.2typical 8.9
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.6typical 2.8
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 9typical 56%
Show 8 more Edmonton playersHide the other Edmonton players
  • V. PodkolzinMixed night
    Right wing
    20:48
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 4
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.06typical 0.16
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.4typical 2.3
  • M. JosephDid his job
    Right wing
    14:42
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.0
  • F. HallanderOff night
    Center
    14:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕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-50.01typical 0.12
  • J. DickinsonDid his job
    Center
    13:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.0typical 2.3
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won8 of 14typical 48%
  • T. EmbersonDid his job
    Defense
    11:10
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 1
  • T. FredericMixed night
    Center
    9:53
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 3
  • I. HowardOff night
    Left wing
    8:59
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 2
  • J. SamanskiDid his job
    Center
    6:19
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.1
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.2
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: 28 ✓, 13 ≈, 25 ✕.

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.

  • T. JarryDid his job
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    20
    Saves
    19
    Sv%
    .950
    xGA
    1.5
    GSAx
    +0.5
    Dangerous
    2/2
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.5typical -0.2
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance17 of 18typically saves 17 of 18
  • Y. AskarovOff night
    Goalie
    56:28
    Shots
    20
    Saves
    17
    Sv%
    .850
    xGA
    2.6
    GSAx
    −0.3
    Dangerous
    5/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.4typical -0.2
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 5typically saves 3 of 5
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance12 of 15typically saves 14 of 15
How goalie cards are graded

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: Edmonton Oilers · San Jose Sharks