Backcheck
Combinations · chemistry

The Line Lab

Which trios actually work when they're on the ice together. We compare what a line shouldproduce given who's on it against what it actually produces — the difference is chemistry. Every unit below really played together at 5-on-5; nothing is hypothetical.

How to read this

Nothing here is invented: every line and pair below actually played together at 5-on-5, with real minutes attached. For each unit we show its observed — the slice of scoring chances it controlled while on the ice, where 50% means break-even.

The interesting part is the split. We first compute an : what those players should produce together if a line were just the sum of its parts. Whatever the real unit does beyond that is the — the closest a spreadsheet gets to measuring whether three players actually fit. Small-minute units are noisy, so read a big bonus on 30 minutes as a hypothesis, not a verdict — and remember this is a model estimate, not the coach's lineup card.

BASE
what the unit “should” produce — its members' individual profiles, added up
CHEM
observed share minus base: the whole vs. the sum of the parts
PROJ
base + chem — the model's expectation if the unit stays together
TICK
the hairline on each bar marks 50% — the break-even line
Fine print · verbatim from the model
  • Lines recovered from MoneyPuck lines.csv (5on5, observed deployment); chemistry = observed xG% minus additive archetype base. Model-estimated.
PITPittsburgh Penguins85 units observed · 5v5As of Sun, Sep 20
Forward lines
4 units
  • 01
    Bryan Rust – Rickard Rakell – Egor Chinakhov
    Together this unit controls play outright — 64% of expected goals, 10 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.
    61 min together 54 +10 → proj 64
    64.0%
    · obs.
  • 02
    Ville Koivunen – Rutger McGroarty – Ben Kindel
    Together this unit controls play outright — 59% of expected goals, 6 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.
    98 min together 53 +6 → proj 59
    59.0%
    · obs.
  • 03
    Noel Acciari – Connor Dewar – Blake Lizotte
    Together this unit tilts the ice — 54% of expected goals, 4 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.
    364 min together 50 +4 → proj 54
    54.0%
    · obs.
  • 04
    Anthony Mantha – Tommy Novak – Justin Brazeau
    Together this unit tilts the ice — 52% of expected goals, about what the talent on it predicts.
    109 min together 53 -1 → proj 52
    52.0%
    · obs.
Defense pairs
3 units
  • 01
    Connor Clifton – Ryan Graves
    Together this unit controls play outright — 62% of expected goals, 30 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.
    190 min together 32 +30 → proj 62
    62.0%
    · obs.
  • 02
    Ryan Shea – Jack St. Ivany
    Together this unit tilts the ice — 53% of expected goals, 25 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.
    148 min together 28 +25 → proj 53
    53.0%
    · obs.
  • 03
    Kris Letang – Samuel Girard
    Together this unit tilts the ice — 53% of expected goals, 25 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.
    266 min together 28 +25 → proj 53
    53.0%
    · obs.
◆ The ModelObserved 5v5 deployment · MoneyPuck linesModel-estimated proxy, not a lineup card

Lines recovered from MoneyPuck lines.csv (5on5, observed deployment); chemistry = observed xG% minus additive archetype base. Model-estimated.