Pittsburgh Penguins
2-2-1
All Penguins playersResults and schedule
Recent results
Coming up
Style fingerprint
How Pittsburgh plays, trait by trait, against the rest of the league.
Real numbers through Oct 10: 5 games this season, blended with last season. Traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.
Real numbers through Oct 10, from this season’s 5 games only. Expect these to swing a lot this early, which is why the likely ranges are so wide.
Offense
- Shot volumeSelectiveRelentless
58.8 shot attempts per 609th of 32
58.8 shot attempts per 609th of 32
- Shot qualityHopefulDangerous
a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot3rd of 32
a 7.4% chance of scoring on the average shot3rd of 32
- Second chancesOne-and-doneCrashers
10.0% of chances come from rebounds28th of 32
5.8% of chances come from rebounds27th of 32
- Off-turnover offensePatientOpportunist
7.5% of chances come right after a turnover13th of 32
6.7% of chances come right after a turnover20th of 32
- Shots from defensemenForward-ledActive D
34.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen17th of 32
36.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th of 32
- Shots from in closeFrom distanceIn close
34.3% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32
36.8% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd of 32
Defense
- Shot suppressionPorousStingy
58.8 shot attempts allowed per 6022nd of 32
62.2 shot attempts allowed per 6025th of 32
- Quality allowedExposedSheltered
a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against27th of 32
a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot against23rd of 32
- Breakdowns avoidedFire drillComposed
0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6020th of 32
0.76 defensive breakdowns per 6027th of 32
- GoaltendingSieveWall
+0.08 goals saved above expected per 6023rd of 32
+0.38 goals saved above expected per 6016th of 32
Tempo and edge
- PaceSlogTrack meet
84.9 shots per 60, both teams combined3rd of 32
90.4 shots per 60, both teams combined3rd of 32
- Forecheck pressurePassiveHounding
forecheck score 70 (100 is league average)32nd of 3215.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32
forecheck score 56 (100 is league average)32nd of 3213.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32
- PhysicalityFinesseBruising
hit score 66 (100 is league average)32nd of 3217.2 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32
hit score 51 (100 is league average)32nd of 3214.2 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32
- DepthTop-heavyDeep
43.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six6th of 32
43.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six11th of 32
Special teams
- Power playHarmlessLethal
7.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play15th of 32
6.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play19th of 32
- Penalty killLeakyAirtight
7.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th of 32
6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded16th of 32
- Power killBunkeredPredatory
1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded12th of 32
2.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded4th of 32
- DisciplineRecklessClean
0.01 more penalties taken than drawn per 6020th of 32
0.39 more penalties drawn than taken per 6011th of 32
Forecheck pressure and physicality are shown as arena-adjusted scores; switch “Hits and takeaways” to Raw in the settings to see the numbers as recorded. How the arena adjustment works.
Key players
Who Pittsburgh leans on, and what they do best.
19:29 a game
#67 · Right wing · 2 P in 5 GP (0 G, 2 A)
- Most ice time
- L2 · Crosby, Rust
- PP1
- Kills penalties
- Tough minutes
- Tough minutes
- Power-play chancestop 7%
- Staying out of the boxtop 10%
- Creating his own chancestop 11%
- Faceoffsbottom 3%
- Preventing chancesbottom 7%
19:09 a game
#87 · Center · 2 P in 5 GP (0 G, 2 A)
- 2nd in ice time
- L2 · Rust, Rakell
- PP1
- Tough minutes
- Tough minutes
- Finishingtop 6%
- Setting up goalstop 7%
- Shooting volumetop 16%
- Shot blockingbottom 8%
- Shooting volumetop 14%
- Preventing chancesbottom 9%
18:45 a game
#17 · Right wing · 2 P in 2 GP (2 G, 0 A)
- L2 · Crosby, Rakell
- Kills penalties
- Tough minutes
- Tough minutes
- Shot blockingtop 8%
- Shorthanded threattop 10%
- Preventing chancesbottom 5%
No clear strengths or weak spots yet.
17:37 a game
#71 · Center · 5 P in 5 GP (3 G, 2 A)
- L1 · Novak, Chinakhov
- PP2
- Setting up goalstop 5%
- Takeawaystop 6%
- Creating chancestop 10%
- Shot blockingbottom 5%
- Distance skatedtop 7%
- Hittingbottom 18%
22:38 a game
#65 · Defenseman · 5 P in 5 GP (0 G, 5 A)
- Most ice time
- P2 · Carlile
- PP1
- Kills penalties
- Tough minutes
- Tough minutes
- Creating chancesTop 10
- Setting up goalstop 6%
- Top speedTop 5
- Shot blockingbottom 1%
- Creating chancestop 11%
- Fast burstsTop 10
- Top speedtop 6%
- Preventing chancesbottom 19%
19:37 a game
#58 · Defenseman · 3 P in 5 GP (0 G, 3 A)
- 2nd in ice time
- P3 · van Riemsdyk
- PP2
- Takeawaystop 14%
- Shooting volumetop 22%
- Finishingbottom 4%
- Shooting volumetop 20%
- Takeawaystop 20%
The 4 forwards and 2 defensemen with the most ice time a game (at least half the games played). Tags show how each is used; rows show his clearest strengths, and a weak spot in grey, as a percentile against his position. Point at anything for details. All Penguins players.
Lines
Who plays together at 5-on-5, and how each group is doing.
Lines and pairs are numbered by 5-on-5 ice time together over the team’s last 10 games (5 so far this season), with each older game counting half as much as the one after it, so the latest combinations come first. With so few games, each group’s results are pulled toward the average for its line number.
- L19:57 a game
- Creates
- 3.21
- Allows
- 2.47
- Share
- 56.5%
- Off. zone draws
- 71%
- L2New9:59 last game
- Creates
- 3.09
- Allows
- 2.74
- Share
- 53.0%
- Off. zone draws
- 100%
- L37:00 a gamein 2 of last 5
C. DewarB. LizotteN. Robertson
- Creates
- 2.44
- Allows
- 2.27
- Share
- 51.8%
- Off. zone draws
- 8%
- L4New8:17 last game
H. LapierreV. KoivunenB. Kindel
- Creates
- 2.72
- Allows
- 2.71
- Share
- 50.1%
- Off. zone draws
- 33%
- P113:30 a game
- Creates
- 2.76
- Allows
- 2.50
- Share
- 52.4%
- Off. zone draws
- 45%
- P211:27 a game
- Creates
- 3.22
- Allows
- 2.98
- Share
- 51.9%
- Off. zone draws
- 54%
- P311:28 a game
- Creates
- 2.51
- Allows
- 2.89
- Share
- 46.4%
- Off. zone draws
- 42%
Last game
At Columbus Blue Jackets, the team used the same lines and pairs as above.
Who plays against whom
Which opposing lines each Pittsburgh group has actually been out against at 5-on-5.
Standing out in all games
- Crosby, Rust, Rakell (L2) have spent 61% of their time against opponents’ first lines. With no line matching it would be about 37%.
- Lapierre, Koivunen, Kindel (L4) have spent 42% of their time against opponents’ second lines. With no line matching it would be about 30%.
- Letang, van Riemsdyk (P3) have spent 26% of their time against opponents’ fourth lines. With no line matching it would be about 16%.
Forward lines against opposing forward lines
- L1Malkin · Novak · ChinakhovOpp. L129%Opp. L228%Opp. L320%Opp. L423%
- L2Crosby · Rust · RakellOpp. L161%Opp. L220%Opp. L310%Opp. L410%
- L3Dewar · Lizotte · RobertsonOpp. L142%Opp. L232%Opp. L319%Opp. L47%
- L4Lapierre · Koivunen · KindelOpp. L115%Opp. L242%Opp. L319%Opp. L424%
Defense pairs against opposing forward lines
- P1Girard · KorczakOpp. L135%Opp. L235%Opp. L317%Opp. L413%
- P2Karlsson · CarlileOpp. L144%Opp. L225%Opp. L318%Opp. L413%
- P3Letang · van RiemsdykOpp. L130%Opp. L230%Opp. L314%Opp. L426%
Standing out at home
- Dewar, Lizotte, Robertson (L3) have spent 71% of their time against opponents’ first lines. With no line matching it would be about 51%.
- Letang, van Riemsdyk (P3) have spent 30% of their time against opponents’ fourth lines. With no line matching it would be about 13%.
- Malkin, Novak, Chinakhov (L1) have spent 18% of their time against opponents’ third lines. With no line matching it would be about 8%.
Forward lines against opposing forward lines
- L1Malkin · Novak · ChinakhovOpp. L142%Opp. L219%Opp. L318%Opp. L421%
- L2Crosby · Rust · RakellOpp. L163%Opp. L215%Opp. L310%Opp. L411%
- L3Dewar · Lizotte · RobertsonOpp. L171%Opp. L227%Opp. L32%Opp. L40%
- L4Lapierre · Koivunen · KindelOpp. L123%Opp. L258%Opp. L31%Opp. L418%
Defense pairs against opposing forward lines
- P1Girard · KorczakOpp. L161%Opp. L226%Opp. L36%Opp. L47%
- P2Karlsson · CarlileOpp. L154%Opp. L226%Opp. L313%Opp. L47%
- P3Letang · van RiemsdykOpp. L132%Opp. L236%Opp. L32%Opp. L430%
Standing out on the road
- Crosby, Rust, Rakell (L2) have spent 60% of their time against opponents’ first lines. With no line matching it would be about 29%.
- Dewar, Lizotte, Robertson (L3) have spent 37% of their time against opponents’ third lines. With no line matching it would be about 22%.
Forward lines against opposing forward lines
- L1Malkin · Novak · ChinakhovOpp. L120%Opp. L235%Opp. L322%Opp. L424%
- L2Crosby · Rust · RakellOpp. L160%Opp. L222%Opp. L310%Opp. L49%
- L3Dewar · Lizotte · RobertsonOpp. L113%Opp. L236%Opp. L337%Opp. L414%
- L4Lapierre · Koivunen · KindelOpp. L112%Opp. L233%Opp. L328%Opp. L427%
Defense pairs against opposing forward lines
- P1Girard · KorczakOpp. L120%Opp. L240%Opp. L323%Opp. L417%
- P2Karlsson · CarlileOpp. L137%Opp. L225%Opp. L321%Opp. L417%
- P3Letang · van RiemsdykOpp. L129%Opp. L224%Opp. L324%Opp. L422%
Each strip adds to 100%: it shows how one Pittsburgh group’s 5-on-5 time is split across the opponent’s four forward lines, numbered the same way as above. Sized by ice time, a wider box means more time against that line; even columns line the boxes up so you can compare groups straight down. At home the coach changes last and picks these matchups; on the road the other coach does. Faded rows have under ten minutes.
What “with no line matching” means: if a coach just rolled his lines and took whoever was out there, each of his groups would face the opponent’s first line about as often as that line is on the ice. If opposing first lines play a third of the time against Pittsburgh, every Pittsburgh group would see them for about a third of its shifts. A number well above that means the coach is sending that group out against them on purpose; well below means he is keeping it away.
Special teams
Who Pittsburgh sends out with a man up and a man down.
Each power-play unit is built around its quarterback, the defenseman running it, plus the four players most often out with him over the last 10 games (5 so far). Power-play units’ expected goals per 60 are pulled toward league average while samples are small. Penalty kills are too loose for fixed units (the most common foursome covers only about a tenth of a typical team’s shorthanded time), so penalty killers are grouped by when they go on: the ones who start kills, the second wave who come on after the first change, and spot duty. Point at a power-play name to see his shots on the map.
Power play
PP171% of the time
Creates 7.4 expected goals per 60
- E. KarlssonQuarterback
- S. CrosbyDistributor
- R. RakellTrigger
- T. Novak
- B. Kindel
PP229% of the time
Creates 6.4 expected goals per 60
- K. LetangQuarterback
- E. Chinakhov
- E. MalkinTrigger
- H. Lapierre
- A. Kuzmenko
Penalty kill
Kills allow 7.0 expected goals per 60, 6th of 32 (this season and last).
Kills allow 6.8 expected goals per 60, 16th of 32 this season.
Starts the kill
- C. Dewar11 of 12 kills · 1:06 a kill
- B. Lizotte10 of 12 kills · 1:02 a kill · takes the draw
- T. van RiemsdykD11 of 12 kills · 1:15 a kill
- D. CarlileD10 of 12 kills · 1:14 a kill
Second wave
- B. Kindel8 of 12 kills · 0:50 a kill
- R. Rakell9 of 12 kills · 0:36 a kill
- B. Rust6 of 12 kills · 0:53 a kill
- N. Robertson6 of 12 kills · 0:30 a kill
- K. KorczakD11 of 12 kills · 0:52 a kill
- S. GirardD10 of 12 kills · 0:51 a kill
- E. KarlssonD6 of 12 kills · 0:54 a kill
Spot duty
- F. Hallander4 of 12 kills · 0:53 a kill
- E. Soderblom2 of 12 kills · 0:55 a kill
- What the tags mean
- Quarterbackthe defenseman who runs the unit from the blue line.
- Triggerthe unit’s main shooter, with the most dangerous power-play shots on the team over this season and last.
- Distributorthe main passer, with the most first assists on the team’s power-play goals over this season and last.
- Net-frontparks in front of the net. At least 40% of his power-play shots come from within 15 feet.
- Pointa second defenseman on the unit, alongside the quarterback.
Goalies
Is he stopping more than he should, and what is his team asking him to face?
A. Silovs39 starts · 1092 shots faced, this season and last
−4.8 goals saved above expected
- Low-danger save %
- .964 529 shots
- Medium-danger save %
- .867 413 shots
- High-danger save %
- .660 150 shots
- Shots faced per 60
- 27
- Defensive breakdowns per 60
- 0.42
- Quality starts
- 51%
Night to night: goals saved above expected in each start
Helping, or hung out to dry?
Show the full picture for A. SilovsHide the full picture
- Stopping more than expectedSieveWall
−4.8 goals saved above expected in 39 starts
- How busy he isQuietUnder siege
27 shots faced per 60
- How dangerous the shots areShelteredExposed
the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
- Breakdowns in front of himRareConstant
0.42 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
- Waiting between shotsSteady workLong waits
a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots; 23% come after three quiet minutes
- Night-to-night steadinessStreakySteady
a quality start 51% of the time
- Really bad starts
- 31%
- Overall save %
- .886
A. Silovs3 starts · 71 shots faced, this season
−1.1 goals saved above expected
- Low-danger save %
- 1.000 32 shots
- Medium-danger save %
- .714 28 shots
- High-danger save %
- .818 11 shots
- Shots faced per 60
- 24
- Defensive breakdowns per 60
- 0.68
- Quality starts
- 33%
Night to night: goals saved above expected in each start
Helping, or hung out to dry?
Show the full picture for A. SilovsHide the full picture
- Stopping more than expectedSieveWall
−1.1 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
- How busy he isQuietUnder siege
24 shots faced per 60
- How dangerous the shots areShelteredExposed
the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
- Breakdowns in front of himRareConstant
0.68 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
- Waiting between shotsSteady workLong waits
a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots; 23% come after three quiet minutes
- Night-to-night steadinessStreakySteady
a quality start 33% of the time
- Really bad starts
- 67%
- Overall save %
- .859
S. Murashov7 starts · 196 shots faced, this season and last
+2.2 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate
- Low-danger save %
- .962 104 shots
- Medium-danger save %
- .853 68 shots
- High-danger save %
- .875 24 shots
- Shots faced per 60
- 29.1
- Defensive breakdowns per 60
- 0.3
- Quality starts
- 57%
Night to night: goals saved above expected in each start
Helping, or hung out to dry?
Show the full picture for S. MurashovHide the full picture
- Stopping more than expectedSieveWall
+2.2 goals saved above expected in 7 startstoo few starts to place him
- How busy he isQuietUnder siege
29.1 shots faced per 60too few starts to place him
- How dangerous the shots areShelteredExposed
the average shot he faces has a 6.3% chance of going intoo few starts to place him
- Breakdowns in front of himRareConstant
0.3 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60too few starts to place him
- Waiting between shotsSteady workLong waits
a typical wait of 66 seconds between shots; 22% come after three quiet minutestoo few starts to place him
- Night-to-night steadinessStreakySteady
a quality start 57% of the timetoo few starts to place him
- Really bad starts
- 0%
- Overall save %
- .913
S. Murashov2 starts · 80 shots faced, this season
+3.0 goals saved above expected
- Low-danger save %
- 1.000 38 shots
- Medium-danger save %
- .900 30 shots
- High-danger save %
- .833 12 shots
- Shots faced per 60
- 39.2
- Defensive breakdowns per 60
- 0.49
- Quality starts
- 100%
Night to night: goals saved above expected in each start
Helping, or hung out to dry?
Show the full picture for S. MurashovHide the full picture
- Stopping more than expectedSieveWall
+3.0 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
- How busy he isQuietUnder siege
39.2 shots faced per 60
- How dangerous the shots areShelteredExposed
the average shot he faces has a 7.4% chance of going in
- Breakdowns in front of himRareConstant
0.49 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
- Waiting between shotsSteady workLong waits
a typical wait of 46 seconds between shots; 19% come after three quiet minutes
- Night-to-night steadinessStreakySteady
a quality start 100% of the time
- Really bad starts
- 0%
- Overall save %
- .938
Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie whose team gives up a lot of cross-ice passes will look worse here than he really is. Ratings compare him with goalies who have at least 10 starts over two seasons, or 2 this season.
Where the goals come from
How Pittsburgh’s goals are scored and allowed, against the league average, and how much of any difference luck alone could explain.
More than luck would explain: fewer of Pittsburgh’s goals come from rebounds.
- Everyday even-strength play56.7%182 of 321
- Power play19.6%63 of 321
- Rebound5%16 of 321
- Empty net5.3%17 of 321
- Off a turnover6.5%21 of 321
- Goalie pulled3.4%11 of 321
- Shorthanded1.6%5 of 321
- Off a faceoff win1.9%6 of 321
321 goals this season and last. Each row has its own scale, so a small source is not squeezed against the left edge.
Every row of Pittsburgh’s goals is within luck’s reach of the league average.
- Everyday even-strength play70%14 of 20
- Power play20%4 of 20
- Rebound0%0 of 20
- Empty net0%0 of 20
- Off a turnover5%1 of 20
- Goalie pulled0%0 of 20
- Shorthanded5%1 of 20
- Off a faceoff win0%0 of 20
20 goals this season, too few to say much: most of any gap from the league is luck. Each row has its own scale, so a small source is not squeezed against the left edge.
More than luck would explain: fewer of the goals Pittsburgh allows come from the power play and faceoff wins.
- Everyday even-strength play54.2%156 of 288
- Power play16.3%47 of 288
- Rebound9.4%27 of 288
- Empty net5.9%17 of 288
- Off a turnover6.6%19 of 288
- Goalie pulled3.8%11 of 288
- Shorthanded3.5%10 of 288
- Off a faceoff win0.3%1 of 288
288 goals this season and last. Each row has its own scale, so a small source is not squeezed against the left edge.
More than luck would explain: more of the goals Pittsburgh allows come from turnovers and play with the goalie pulled.
- Everyday even-strength play46.7%7 of 15
- Power play6.7%1 of 15
- Rebound13.3%2 of 15
- Empty net0%0 of 15
- Off a turnover20%3 of 15
- Goalie pulled13.3%2 of 15
- Shorthanded0%0 of 15
- Off a faceoff win0%0 of 15
15 goals this season, too few to say much: most of any gap from the league is luck. Each row has its own scale, so a small source is not squeezed against the left edge.
Every goal counts once, in the first of these that applies: empty net, power play, shorthanded, goalie pulled, then rebound, turnover, faceoff win, and everyday play. These mixes are mostly luck: over three seasons, teams’ goals came from much the same places, and most of the differences here didn’t last.