Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Sat, Oct 3 · the slate
Breakdown · CGY at VAN

Canucks run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Oct 3
CGYCalgary Flames1VANVancouver Canucks4
The verdict · earned

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

CGY 1 · VAN 4
◆ By the ModelOct 4, 1:13 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 Canucks beat the Flames 4–1 by converting the rush while L. Meriläinen stopped Calgary when it mattered.

Vancouver controlled the expected goals split 66% in their favor (4.06–2.12). They built this advantage through the transition, scoring three goals off the rush and converting pressure into danger at a rate Calgary couldn't match.

Calgary generated 2.12 expected goals but managed only one — underperforming their workload by 1.12 — and that gap tells the real story. Vancouver's movement shut them down when they had the puck, and when Calgary did create something, it didn't finish.

The Canucks were surgical in space. T. Willander (VAN) recorded two assists in 20:15, creating much of that rush momentum. L. Karlsson (VAN) added two more assists in 18:12, extending transition advantage into the offensive zone with precision. L. Ohgren (VAN) scored once and assisted once in 17:19, a multipurpose night showing a forward doing the truly hard part: breaking the puck out and feeding the transition.

Goaltending diverged sharply. L. Meriläinen stopped 23 of 24 shots (0.958 save percentage), stopping 1.12 goals more than her volume suggested she should have. D. Cooley (CGY) posted 22 saves on 25 shots (0.880 save percentage), yet prevented 1.06 expected goals—he was sharp against quality chances but faced a volume he couldn't fully stem.

Vancouver created seven high-danger chances to Calgary's three. This wasn't close.

The goals

  • CGY 1–0, 14:51 of the first on the power play. M. Coronato, wrist shot from 38 feet, a 7% chance by the model, past L. Meriläinen. Assists: Z. Parekh, J. Farabee. 6 seconds after a CGY faceoff win by J. Farabee. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • VAN 1–1, 01:28 of the third. L. Ohgren, wrist shot from 9 feet, a 12% chance by the model (a rebound), past D. Cooley. Assists: P. Cotter, T. Willander. 3 seconds after a VAN shot by L. Ohgren. Win probability moved 27 points.
  • VAN 1–2, 09:04 of the third. E. Pettersson, backhander from 13 feet, a 17% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Cooley. Assists: L. Ohgren, T. Willander. Win probability moved 30 points.
  • VAN 1–3, 16:33 of the third. D. O'Connor, wrist shot from 32 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Cooley. Assists: L. Karlsson. 6 seconds after a VAN hit by E. Pettersson. Win probability moved 8 points.
  • VAN 1–4, 17:16 of the third into an empty net. A. Räty, wrist shot from 45 feet, a 47% chance by the model (off the rush). Assists: L. Karlsson, E. Pettersson.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 3
CGY
1
VAN
4

Canucks run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
2.12
VAN
4.06
34% of the chances66%

The board read CGY 1, VAN 4. The chances read CGY 2.1, VAN 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
−0.1
goals above expected
VAN4.06 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY2.12 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+30
win-probability points
53% → 83% for VAN
VAN 100%the game, start to finish
CGY 100%P1 · P2 · P3
VANP3 09:04

E. Pettersson makes it 1–2.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 14:51CGYM. CoronatoPP7%1–0
  2. P3 01:28VANL. Ohgren12%1–1
  3. P3 09:04VANE. Pettersson17%1–2
  4. P3 16:33VAND. O'Connor11%1–3
  5. P3 17:16VANA. RätyEN47%1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
41 shots
1
Final
80 shots
VAN
39 shots
4
CGY attackVAN attack
CGY VAN Goal
41
shots · 1 in
39
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYVAN
0 / 3
0.64 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.64 xG
1 / 13
1.12 xG
Medium
3 / 17
2.00 xG
0 / 47
0.36 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.42 xG

The Flames went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
L. Meriläinen
+1.1
VAN · 23/24 · 60:00
Best save · a 23% chance, snap from 18 ft · P3 16:58
B
D. Cooley
+0.6
CGY · 22/25 · 59:46
Best save · a 22% chance, snap from 11 ft · P1 07:36
Best skater on the ice
A+
VAN
L. Ohgren
L · impact 2.41
17:19
Ice time
1–1
G – A
0.50
Own xG
90%
xG share
Impact · top 4
L. Ohgren2.4A+
L. Karlsson2.1A+
A. Räty1.6A+
T. Willander1.5A
Report card
CGYVAN
OffenseC-A+
DefenseFC+
TransitionD-A-
Special teamsA+F
GoaltendingBB
DisciplineFA+
LuckCB
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why VAN won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03L. Meriläinen tilted the crease
Why CGY lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Paraded to the penalty box
  3. 03Cold finishing night
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks run the Flames 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 11–5
  1. 14:51CGYM. Coronatopower play(Z. Parekh, J. Farabee)1–0

    Wrist shot from 38 feet, a 7% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past L. Meriläinen. 6s after a CGY faceoff win by J. Farabee. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: M. Backlund, Z. Whitecloud, J. Farabee, K. Bahl, S. Honzek · against A. Bains, J. Lekkerimäki, M. Sasson, T. Willander, Z. Buium

2ndshots 8–9no goals
    3rdshots 5–12
    1. 01:28VANL. Ohgren(P. Cotter, T. Willander)1–1

      Wrist shot from 9 feet, a 12% chance (a rebound), past D. Cooley. 3s after a VAN shot by L. Ohgren. Win probability moved 27 points.On the ice: B. Boeser, F. Hronek, P. Cotter, L. Ohgren, E. Pettersson · against M. Backlund, J. Middleton, J. Farabee, S. Honzek, Z. Parekh

    2. 09:04VANE. Pettersson(L. Ohgren, T. Willander)1–2

      Backhander from 13 feet, a 17% chance (off the rush), past D. Cooley. Win probability moved 30 points.On the ice: F. Hronek, L. Karlsson, M. Sasson, Z. Buium · against Z. Whitecloud, K. Bahl, Y. Sharangovich, S. Honzek

    3. 16:33VAND. O'Connor(L. Karlsson)1–3

      Wrist shot from 32 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past D. Cooley. 6s after a VAN hit by E. Pettersson. Win probability moved 8 points.

    4. 17:16VANA. Rätyempty net(L. Karlsson, E. Pettersson)1–4

      Wrist shot from 45 feet, a 47% chance (off the rush).

    score reads CGY–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.06
    VAN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.048
    VAN puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    50.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.12Expected goals4.06
    VAN 66% of the chance quality
    24Shots on goal26
    3High-danger chances7
    63All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: CGY 49% · VAN 52%
    Faceoffs · VAN won48%off27%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CGY0 / 3 · 0.64 xG
    VAN1 / 7 · 1.64 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CGY1 / 13 · 1.12 xG
    VAN3 / 17 · 2.00 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CGY0 / 47 · 0.36 xG
    VAN0 / 39 · 0.42 xG

    VAN went 3-for-17 from medium danger on 2.00 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CGY
    1 G · 2.12 xG · -1.1
    VAN
    4 G · 4.06 xG · -0.1
    012345

    CGY finished -1.1 against expected, VAN -0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CGY
    SNAP0/27
    WRIST1/6
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/3
    OTHER0/22
    VAN
    SNAP0/15
    WRIST3/13
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    BACKHAND1/5
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/24
    CGY
    VAN
    Off the rush
    0 G on 23
    1.82 xG
    3 G on 26
    3.18 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG
    1 G on 6
    0.66 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CGY went 0-for-27, VAN 0-for-15. VAN scored 3 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
    D. Cooley
    CGY · 22/25 · .880
    started · 59:46 · loss
    +0.6
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    Attempts faced
    38
    Avg chance faced
    9.4%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.921 vs 0.906
    Rebounds allowed
    6 · 1 scored on
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.2+1.2
    Medium3/172.0-1.0
    Low0/150.4+0.4
    Shorthanded0/60.7+0.7
    Tips & deflections0/30.3+0.3
    The save
    22% chance stopped, a snap from 11 ft · P1 07:36
    The one to have back
    11% chance went in, a wrist from 32 ft · P3 16:33

    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

    L. Meriläinen
    VAN · 23/24 · .958
    started · 60:00 · win
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    Attempts faced
    40
    Avg chance faced
    5.3%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.975 vs 0.947
    Rebounds allowed
    0
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.6+0.6
    Medium1/131.1+0.1
    Low0/240.4+0.4
    Shorthanded1/20.2-0.8
    Tips & deflections0/50.4+0.4
    The save
    23% chance stopped, a snap from 18 ft · P3 16:58
    The one to have back
    7% chance went in, a wrist from 38 ft · P1 14:51

    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: L. Ohgren (VAN), 17:19 of ice, 1-1, 90% of the expected goals while he was out.

    CGY18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    M. CoronatoR16:481-077A
    Z. ParekhD17:000-144B
    M. FrostC15:480-070B
    M. GridinR16:460-074B
    J. FarabeeL14:350-145C
    R. StromeC11:340-039C
    Z. WhitecloudD25:010-028C
    B. OthmannL10:300-037C
    S. NemecD19:590-040D
    M. PospisilC12:310-019D
    Y. SharangovichC16:550-029D
    M. BacklundC18:570-024D
    M. TsyplakovR11:290-024D
    J. HanleyD16:180-021F
    J. MiddletonD17:390-032F
    A. KlapkaR8:070-012F
    K. BahlD22:370-042F
    S. HonzekL15:400-025F
    VAN18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    L. OhgrenL17:191-190A+
    L. KarlssonC18:120-264A+
    A. RätyC9:301-071A+
    T. WillanderD20:150-266A
    D. O'ConnorL17:501-067A
    E. PetterssonD14:491-096A
    P. CotterL14:060-177A
    E. PetterssonC22:240-147B
    F. HronekD28:520-062B
    B. BoeserR18:370-082B
    Z. BuiumD22:490-068B
    M. SassonC12:120-053C
    B. GallagherR10:080-076C
    J. LekkerimäkiR11:120-060C
    M. RossiC20:090-051C
    A. BainsL11:040-030D
    J. OleksiakD17:540-036D
    L. SchennD8:040-083D

    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, CGY: B. Pachal, C. Zary, Y. Kuznetsov. Scratched, VAN: G. Brisebois, J. DeBrusk, V. Mancini. Referees Tom Chmielewski and Jordan Samuels Thomas; linesmen Andrew Smith and Trent Knorr.

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionCGYVAN
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    CGY Created 2.12 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.64 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.82 xG).

    VAN Created 4.06 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 7 high-danger shots (1.64 xG) and 26 rush shots (3.18 xG).

    C-
    72
    A+
    100
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    CGY Allowed 4.06 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 7 high-danger shots (1.64 xG) and 26 rush shots (3.18 xG).

    VAN Allowed 2.12 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.64 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.82 xG).

    F
    49
    C+
    78
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    CGY Rush shots 23–26, rush xG 1.82–3.18 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    VAN Rush shots 26–23, rush xG 3.18–1.82 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    D-
    60
    A-
    90
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    CGY 1-for-2 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 0.18 PP xG.

    VAN 0-for-5 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.70 PP xG.

    A+
    100
    F
    54
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    CGY +1.06 goals saved above expected on 25 shots against.

    VAN +1.12 goals saved above expected on 24 shots against.

    B
    86
    B
    86
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    CGY Took 9 penalties for 37 PIM vs 5 for 21 on the other side.

    VAN Took 5 penalties for 21 PIM vs 9 for 37 on the other side.

    F
    35
    A+
    100
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    CGY Finishing -1.12 goals vs xG plus +1.06 GSAx of save luck = -0.06 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    VAN Finishing -0.06 goals vs xG plus +1.12 GSAx of save luck = +1.06 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    C
    74
    B
    83
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    WARNINGCGY

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 26 rush shots worth 3.18 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    STRENGTHVAN

    Dangerous off the rush

    3 goals on 26 rush shots worth 3.18 xG.

    WARNINGCGY

    Paraded to the penalty box

    Took 9 penalties for 37 minutes (opponent: 5 for 21).

    Cut the stick infractions — the penalty differential is a controllable.

    STRENGTHVAN

    Won on the merits

    The Canucks controlled 66% of expected goals (4.06–2.12) and won 4-1 — result matched process.

    STRENGTHCGY

    D. Cooley was perfect on high danger

    D. Cooley stopped all 6 high-danger shots he faced (100% HD save rate).

    WARNINGVAN

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 23 rush shots worth 1.82 xG (0 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    80 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CGY
    41 shots
    1
    Final
    80 shots
    VAN
    39 shots
    4
    CGY attackVAN attack
    CGY VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, VAN 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
    T. Willander
    #5 · D · VAN
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 20:15 on ice · +2
    L. Karlsson
    #94 · C · VAN
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:12 on ice · +3
    L. Ohgren
    #92 · L · VAN
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:19 on ice · +2
    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, 9:11 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

    The model projects a coin flip: Calgary 3.2, Vancouver 3.2, Flames at 50% win probability.

    Calgary controls possession. The Flames drive shot attempts at 56.3% five-on-five, a territorial advantage that usually translates to expected goals. But team save percentage luck complicates everything. Vancouver is running hot at 1.100; Calgary is running cold at 0.843. Both teams are due for regression — the Canucks will cool, the Flames will warm.

    The goaltending matchup is where edges sharpen. D. Wolf saves high-danger chances at 80.0%, below par and inviting Calgary to work the slot. The Flames have already thrived there: four goals on 51 slot attempts, 8% conversion. K. Lankinen is the bigger liability — 63.4% on high-danger saves and 6.0 more goals than expected across two starts. That's a significant gap.

    Calgary's path is possession and slot dominance, forcing D. Wolf to make tough saves where he's weakest. Vancouver's counter requires discipline — they'll have fewer opportunities with their possession deficit, so shot quality matters. K. Lankinen's deficiency means even routine attempts find the net.

    The Flames have the tactical edge in workload and shot attempts. The Canucks have save percentage fortune in their corner. One will hold; the other will break. Expected goals don't separate them (41.8% vs 41.4%), which is why the model calls it even. It's a pick'em because both paths to victory are credible.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CGY 50%
    50%
    CGY
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    CGY50VAN

    CGY by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CGY 3.2–3.2 VAN; 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
    CGY← edge
    edge →VAN
    41.8%41.4%
    56.3%43.2%
    3.022.75
    4.203.89
    1.006.50
    6.007.00
    0.8431.100

    CGY holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.843 vs 1.100) says VAN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 1–2
    CGY
    0-1-0
    -5 GD · 1d rest
    VAN
    1-1-0
    -1 GD · 1d rest
    0.843
    CGY PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.100
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    TACTICAL

    The Flames drive Corsi at 56.3%

    The Flames drive Corsi at 56.3% — expect territorial tilt.

    TACTICALCGY

    Goalie Weakness: Flames

    Below-average on high-danger saves. Prioritize quality over quantity.

    Their goalie (Dustin Wolf) leaks HD — 80.0% HD SV. Get to the slot.

    TACTICALVAN

    Goalie Weakness: Canucks

    Below-average on high-danger saves. Prioritize quality over quantity.

    Their goalie (Kevin Lankinen) leaks HD — 63.4% HD SV. Get to the slot.

    WARNINGVAN

    Regression watch: Canucks

    The Canucks' PDO is 1.100 — running hot, expect some regression.

    Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

    Where the edges live
    • The Flames drive Corsi at 56.3% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 1.100 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.843 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Flames drive Corsi at 56.3% — expect territorial tilt.
    • Goalie matchup: D. Wolf (-2.0 GSAx in 1 GP, 81.2% SV) vs K. Lankinen (-6.0 GSAx in 2 GP, 78.9% SV).
    • The Canucks' PDO is 1.100 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CGY
    vs SEA · Thu, Oct 1
    Expected in goal
    D. Wolf
    1 day rest.813 last start59:50 played
    Forwards · 12
    • M. Backlund17:07
    • M. Frost12:48
    • Y. Sharangovich17:14
    • R. Strome16:01
    • M. Coronato13:34
    • S. Honzek15:32
    • A. Klapka11:29
    • C. Zary13:19
    • M. Tsyplakov12:28
    • M. Pospisil12:40
    • J. Farabee17:11
    • M. Gridin12:10
    Defence · 6
    • K. Bahl21:07
    • Z. Parekh17:47
    • Z. Whitecloud19:14
    • Y. Kuznetsov18:10
    • J. Middleton20:55
    • S. Nemec21:18
    VAN
    vs EDM · Thu, Oct 1
    Expected in goal
    K. Lankinen
    1 day rest.650 last start28:23 played
    K. Lankinen started last game and was relieved by L. Meriläinen (30:41 of it).
    Backup Leevi Merilainen · +0.0 GSAx this season
    Forwards · 12
    • B. Boeser18:38
    • B. Gallagher11:08
    • A. Bains11:29
    • D. O'Connor13:23
    • M. Rossi15:16
    • E. Pettersson17:36
    • P. Cotter16:12
    • M. Sasson13:36
    • J. DeBrusk15:37
    • J. Lekkerimäki12:04
    • L. Ohgren18:33
    • L. Karlsson13:47
    Defence · 6
    • L. Schenn14:02
    • J. Oleksiak21:19
    • T. Willander21:11
    • Z. Buium20:58
    • F. Hronek23:02
    • E. Pettersson16:17

    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

    Back to the front page