Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
Breakdown · STL at COL

Avalanche run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

The Avalanche earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

STL 1 · COL 6
◆ By the ModelOct 11, 5:30 AMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Avalanche rolled past the Blues 6-1. M. Necas scored twice, and C. Makar, A. Lehkonen, J. Manson and N. Roy also scored. D. Dvorsky's backhander in the third was St. Louis's only goal.

The scoreboard says rout, and the process says something closer. Colorado finished 2.44 goals above what its chances should have produced, which flatters the final margin.

Even so, the underlying numbers belong to Colorado. The Avalanche held 58% of shot attempts. At five-on-five, they also took 64% of expected goals, which weights each chance by how likely it was to go in.

Quality backed up the volume. Colorado took four high-danger chances to none for St. Louis.

Colorado was lethal off the rush, scoring five goals on 28 rush chances.

J. Binnington let in 2.44 more goals than the shots against him should have allowed. M. Blackwood, at the other end, stopped 1.05 more goals than the shots he faced should have allowed.

The goals

  • COL 0–1, 04:09 of the first. C. Makar, wrist shot from 7 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Binnington. Assists: M. Necas, N. MacKinnon. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • COL 0–2, 13:12 of the first. M. Necas, snap shot from 28 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Binnington. Assists: N. MacKinnon, A. Lehkonen. Win probability moved 12 points.
  • COL 0–3, 05:38 of the second. J. Manson, snap shot from 58 feet, a 2% chance by the model, past J. Binnington. Assists: N. Roy, P. Kelly. Win probability moved 7 points.
  • COL 0–4, 11:40 of the second. A. Lehkonen, snap shot from 18 feet, a 22% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Binnington. 2 seconds after a COL takeaway by A. Lehkonen.
  • COL 0–5, 18:02 of the second. N. Roy, wrist shot from 23 feet, a 12% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Binnington. Assists: P. Kelly, J. Manson. 5 seconds after a STL giveaway by A. Jiricek.
  • COL 0–6, 18:25 of the second. M. Necas, backhander from 8 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Binnington. Assists: G. Landeskog, N. MacKinnon.
  • STL 1–6, 02:34 of the third. D. Dvorsky, backhander from 11 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past M. Blackwood. Assists: T. Lindstein. 4 seconds after a STL blocked shot by N. Roy.
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 3
STL
1
COL
6

Avalanche run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.0 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
2.05
COL
3.56
37% of the chances64%

The board read STL 1, COL 6. The chances read STL 2.0, COL 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
+2.4
goals above expected
COL3.56 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
STL2.05 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Avalanche scored 2.4 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+14
win-probability points
54% → 68% for COL
COL 100%the game, start to finish
STL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
COLP1 04:09

C. Makar makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:09COLC. Makar14%0–1
  2. P1 13:12COLM. Necas14%0–2
  3. P2 05:38COLJ. Manson2%0–3
  4. P2 11:40COLA. Lehkonen22%0–4
  5. P2 18:02COLN. Roy12%0–5
  6. P2 18:25COLM. Necas14%0–6
  7. P3 02:34STLD. Dvorsky14%1–6
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
38 shots
1
Final
87 shots
COL
49 shots
6
STL attackCOL attack
STL COL Goal
38
shots · 1 in
49
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLCOL
0 / 0
0.00 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.92 xG
1 / 13
1.57 xG
Medium
4 / 21
2.26 xG
0 / 42
0.48 xG
Low
1 / 41
0.38 xG

High-danger looks: STL 0 of 0, COL 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
M. Blackwood
+1.1
COL · 25/26 · 60:00
Best save · a 17% chance, wrist from 11 ft · P1 18:51
F
J. Binnington
−2.4
STL · 30/36 · 60:00
Best save · a 30% chance, wrist from 4 ft · P1 12:23
Best skater on the ice
A+
COL
M. Necas
C · impact 3.12
19:21
Ice time
2–1
G – A
0.52
Own xG
73%
xG share
Impact · top 4
M. Necas3.1A+
N. MacKinnon2.6A+
N. Roy1.8A+
J. Manson2.0A
Report card
STLCOL
OffenseD+A-
DefenseD-B-
TransitionDB
Special teamsFF
GoaltendingFB
DisciplineDB
LuckFA+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why COL won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03M. Blackwood tilted the crease
Why STL lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02J. Binnington couldn't make the stop
  3. 03PDO ran cold
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 4–15
  1. 04:09COLC. Makar(M. Necas, N. MacKinnon)0–1

    Wrist shot from 7 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: N. Kadri, B. Nelson, J. Manson, G. Landeskog, S. Malinski · against P. Buchnevich, B. Carlo, C. McMichael, M. McTavish, T. Lindstein

  2. 13:12COLM. Necas(N. MacKinnon, A. Lehkonen)0–2

    Snap shot from 28 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington. Win probability moved 12 points.On the ice: J. Schwartz, B. Kulak, N. Juulsen, F. Svechkov, T. Hughes · against C. Fowler, J. Berggren, J. Neighbours, D. Dvorsky, A. Jiricek

2ndshots 11–7
  1. 05:38COLJ. Manson(N. Roy, P. Kelly)0–3

    Snap shot from 58 feet, a 2% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past J. Binnington. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: B. Burns, B. Kulak, N. Roy, P. Kelly, T. Hughes · against C. Fowler, D. Dube, P. Suter, Z. Dean, A. Jiricek

  2. 11:40COLA. Lehkonen0–4

    Snap shot from 18 feet, a 22% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington. 2s after a COL takeaway by A. Lehkonen.On the ice: N. Kadri, J. Schwartz, J. Manson, S. Malinski, T. Hughes · against C. Parayko, D. Dube, P. Suter, P. Broberg, Z. Dean

  3. 18:02COLN. Roy(P. Kelly, J. Manson)0–5

    Wrist shot from 23 feet, a 12% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington. 5s after a STL giveaway by A. Jiricek.On the ice: J. Manson, G. Landeskog, N. MacKinnon, M. Necas, S. Malinski · against J. Berggren, P. Broberg, J. Neighbours, D. Dvorsky, A. Jiricek

  4. 18:25COLM. Necas(G. Landeskog, N. MacKinnon)0–6

    Backhander from 8 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington.On the ice: N. Kadri, B. Nelson, J. Manson, A. Lehkonen, S. Malinski · against P. Buchnevich, B. Carlo, C. McMichael, M. McTavish, T. Lindstein

3rdshots 11–14
  1. 02:34STLD. Dvorsky(T. Lindstein)1–6

    Backhander from 11 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past M. Blackwood. 4s after a STL block.On the ice: C. Parayko, D. Dube, P. Suter, P. Broberg, Z. Dean · against B. Nelson, D. Toews, N. Juulsen, P. Kelly, F. Svechkov

score reads STL–COL

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.56
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.073
COL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.05Expected goals3.56
COL 64% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal36
0High-danger chances4
55All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: STL 52% · COL 48%
Faceoffs · COL won55%off67%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
COL1 / 4 · 0.92 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL1 / 13 · 1.57 xG
COL4 / 21 · 2.26 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL0 / 42 · 0.48 xG
COL1 / 41 · 0.38 xG

COL went 4-for-21 from medium danger on 2.26 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
1 G · 2.05 xG · -1.1
COL
6 G · 3.56 xG · +2.4
01234567

STL finished -1.1 against expected, COL +2.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST0/23
SNAP0/8
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND1/4
TIP IN0/1
OTHER0/17
COL
WRIST2/24
SNAP3/11
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND1/3
TIP IN0/3
OTHER0/17
STL
COL
Off the rush
1 G on 25
1.60 xG
5 G on 28
2.52 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.23 xG
0 G on 6
0.71 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-23, COL 2-for-24. COL scored 5 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG
Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD
High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi
Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.
Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx
Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO
Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected
J. Binnington
STL · 30/36 · .833
started · 60:00 · loss
-2.4
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
48
Avg chance faced
7.4%
Stopped vs expected
0.875 vs 0.926
Rebounds allowed
6
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium4/212.3-1.7
Low1/230.4-0.6
Shorthanded0/80.6+0.6
Tips & deflections0/30.2+0.2
The save
30% chance stopped, a wrist from 4 ft · P1 12:23
The one to have back
2% chance went in, a snap from 58 ft · P2 05:38

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

M. Blackwood
COL · 25/26 · .962
started · 60:00 · win
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
Attempts faced
38
Avg chance faced
5.4%
Stopped vs expected
0.974 vs 0.946
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
Medium1/131.6+0.6
Low0/250.5+0.5
Shorthanded0/30.2+0.2
Tips & deflections0/10.1+0.1
The save
17% chance stopped, a wrist from 11 ft · P1 18:51
The one to have back
14% chance went in, a backhand from 11 ft · P3 02:34

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: M. Necas (COL), 19:21 of ice, 2-1, 73% of the expected goals while he was out.

STL18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
D. DvorskyR12:171-037B
T. LindsteinD14:260-127B
D. HollowayL15:350-051C
C. McMichaelL15:190-042C
J. SnuggerudR14:510-064C
M. McTavishC14:570-038C
C. FowlerD23:240-050C
C. ParaykoD20:450-038D
P. BuchnevichL15:430-040D
R. ThomasC16:300-044D
P. BrobergD20:160-031D
A. JiricekD19:430-033D
J. NeighboursL13:430-028D
J. BerggrenR14:480-028F
B. CarloD17:360-035F
P. SuterC16:140-038F
Z. DeanC12:370-040F
D. DubeC13:160-024F
COL18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
M. NecasC19:212-173A+
N. MacKinnonC18:160-372A+
N. RoyC12:531-161A+
J. MansonD16:361-171A
P. KellyC15:310-262A
A. LehkonenL19:261-157A
C. MakarD20:041-088A
G. LandeskogL14:350-163A
T. HughesR19:560-069B
J. SchwartzL14:140-074B
F. SvechkovC15:050-076B
N. KadriC18:270-060B
S. MalinskiD15:370-064B
D. ToewsD18:550-071C
B. NelsonC16:110-052C
B. BurnsD13:100-061C
B. KulakD16:480-040D
N. JuulsenD10:550-036D

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, STL: R. Johnston, A. Toropchenko, J. Barron. Referees Thomas John Luxmore and Stephen Hiff; linesmen Joe Mahon and Jonny Murray.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionSTLCOL
Offense
▸Basis

STL Created 2.05 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 0 high-danger shots (0.00 xG) and 25 rush shots (1.60 xG).

COL Created 3.56 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.92 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.52 xG).

D+
68
A-
90
Defense
▸Basis

STL Allowed 3.56 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.92 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.52 xG).

COL Allowed 2.05 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 0 high-danger shots (0.00 xG) and 25 rush shots (1.60 xG).

D-
60
B-
82
Transition
▸Basis

STL Rush shots 25–28, rush xG 1.60–2.52 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

COL Rush shots 28–25, rush xG 2.52–1.60 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D
64
B
86
Special teams
▸Basis

STL 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.17 PP xG.

COL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.62 PP xG.

F
51
F
54
Goaltending
▸Basis

STL -2.44 goals saved above expected on 36 shots against.

COL +1.05 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

F
51
B
86
Discipline
▸Basis

STL Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

COL Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

D
65
B
85
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

STL Finishing -1.05 goals vs xG plus -2.44 GSAx of save luck = -3.49 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

COL Finishing +2.44 goals vs xG plus +1.05 GSAx of save luck = +3.49 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

F
47
A+
100
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGSTL

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 28 rush shots worth 2.52 xG (5 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHCOL

Dangerous off the rush

5 goals on 28 rush shots worth 2.52 xG.

WARNINGSTL

J. Binnington couldn't make the stop

J. Binnington allowed 6 on 36 shots (0.833) — 2.44 goals worse than expected.

Reassess the crease rotation before the next start.

LUCKCOL

Ran hot in front of the net

Scored 6 on 3.56 xG — +2.44 above expected. Shooting luck like that regresses.

WARNINGCOL

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 25 rush shots worth 1.60 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

LUCKSTL

PDO ran cold

Single-game PDO of 0.927 — the bounces went against them tonight.

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
STL
38 shots
1
Final
87 shots
COL
49 shots
6
STL attackCOL attack
STL COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, COL right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Necas
#88 · C · COL
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:21 on ice · +4
N. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
0 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 18:16 on ice · +3
A. Lehkonen
#62 · L · COL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:26 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 3, 9:07 AMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Colorado is the model's lean over St. Louis tonight. The projection sits around 3.4-2.8, with the Avalanche winning 60% of the time. Two factors drive that edge: Colorado's command of the even-strength game, and the clock working against J. Hofer.

The Avalanche own the underlying play at even strength, claiming 55.5% of expected goals — the metric for quality chances. St. Louis manages 46.2%. That margin is the game — not transformative, but the kind of edge that compounds in tight third periods.

Rest amplifies it. Colorado comes in on two days off; St. Louis on none. That advantage typically materializes late, and it magnifies when the opposing goalie is running on back-to-back legs.

J. Hofer starts for St. Louis in his second straight night, which is where the fatigue signal burns brightest. If the Blues turn to a backup, Colorado's edge widens. If Hofer plays, watch his positioning in close — goalies on back-to-backs often leak in the slot.

M. Blackwood appeared once for Colorado, allowing 1.4 more goals than the chances dictated while stopping 87.1% of shots. J. Hofer appeared once, allowing 3.0 fewer goals than expected with perfect stops. Both are single-game auditions; both will regress toward the mean.

Both teams are running hot by luck. Colorado's 1.140 PDO and St. Louis's 1.133 mean both are overperforming their underlying metrics. That luck typically corrects soonest for the team on the road or fatigued, so regression likely strikes St. Louis tonight.

Colorado's slot conversion is the sharpest edge in the matchup — eight goals on 47 shots from the prime area, a 17% rate. The Blues can target denial there; whether they manage that while navigating back-to-back exhaustion is the second-order question.

The model says Colorado by one. Rest and goaltending say the margin could be wider.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 60%
60%
COL
Model favorite
40%
60%
STL50COL

COL by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score STL 2.8–3.4 COL; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
STL← edge
edge →COL
46.2%55.5%
50.7%49.4%
2.773.47
3.232.79
4.008.00
0.004.00
1.1331.140

COL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.133 vs 1.140) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 1
STL
1-0-0
+4 GD · 0d rest
COL
1-0-0
+4 GD · 2d rest
1.133
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.140
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

WARNINGSTL

J. Hofer on a back-to-back

J. Hofer projects to start on no rest, the second night of a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or tired legs.

Test the goalie early with traffic and second-chance pressure.

TACTICAL

The Avalanche own the underlying play

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 55.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.2%.

TACTICALCOL

The model's clear lean

The Avalanche project at 60% win probability.

WARNINGCOL

Regression watch: Avalanche

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.140 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 55.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.2%.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.140 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Blues' PDO is 1.133 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 55.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.2%.
  • Goalie matchup: J. Hofer (+3.0 GSAx in 1 GP, 100.0% SV) vs M. Blackwood (-1.4 GSAx in 1 GP, 87.1% SV).
  • J. Hofer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.140 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Avalanche have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
STL
vs DAL · Fri, Oct 2
Expected in goal
J. Hofer
back-to-back1.000 last start60:00 played
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.
Forwards · 12
  • A. Toropchenko05:08
  • D. Dvorsky13:03
  • R. Thomas22:59
  • J. Snuggerud18:59
  • P. Suter14:25
  • J. Berggren13:48
  • R. Johnston09:56
  • J. Neighbours13:03
  • C. McMichael13:03
  • D. Holloway19:21
  • M. McTavish14:36
  • P. Buchnevich17:11
Defence · 6
  • T. Lindstein15:13
  • P. Broberg23:08
  • C. Fowler22:38
  • B. Carlo15:27
  • A. Jiricek16:35
  • C. Parayko20:27
COL
vs LAK · Wed, Sep 30
Expected in goal
M. Blackwood
2 days rest.871 last start60:00 played
Forwards · 11
  • F. Svechkov15:28
  • N. Roy12:12
  • B. Nelson19:14
  • T. Hughes13:35
  • P. Kelly12:53
  • N. MacKinnon17:44
  • A. Lehkonen19:27
  • J. Schwartz12:49
  • M. Necas19:11
  • N. Kadri17:57
  • G. Landeskog17:52
Defence · 7
  • D. Toews20:04
  • C. Makar18:14
  • B. Kulak19:44
  • J. Manson14:31
  • N. Juulsen11:15
  • S. Malinski14:27
  • B. Burns15:23

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Keep going

Where to next