NHL Total Model · 2026-10-01

10:00 PM ETAVOID

O 6.5 ✗ went over

EDM#4 OFF / #20 DEF93.67●

D. Levi ✓ OK 28

VAN#25 OFF / #32 DEF72.74●

K. Lankinen ✓ Trash 1

16 goals · proj 6.41 · P(7+) 50%

	5v5	PP	Gl	Oth	B2B	Spd	Inj
EDM	2.38	0.68	+6.2%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a
VAN	1.77	0.59	-0.4%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a

Why this call

Team	5-on-5
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
EDM	2.18#6 of 32	2.25#31 of 32	2.38goals
VAN	1.84#32 of 32	1.98#8 of 32	1.77goals

Team	Power play
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
EDM	0.65#2 of 32	0.58#25 of 32	0.68goals
VAN	0.57#11 of 32	0.57#18 of 32	0.59goals

Key players: top 5 attackers & defenders

Top 5 attackers
Player	If out	Played?
EDM
Connor McDavid C	-7.9%	Played
Leon Draisaitl C	-5.8%	Played
Evan Bouchard D	-4.6%	Played
Zach Hyman L	-3.7%	Didn't play
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins C	-2.5%	Didn't play
VAN
Jake DeBrusk L	-1.9%	Played
Brock Boeser R	-1.7%	Played
Elias Pettersson C	-1.6%	Played
Marco Rossi C	-1.1%	Played
Linus Karlsson C	-1.0%	Played

Top 5 defenders
Player	If out	Played?
EDM
Connor McDavid C	+1.6%	Played
Evan Bouchard D	+1.4%	Played
Leon Draisaitl C	+1.4%	Played
Vasily Podkolzin R	+1.3%	Played
Zach Hyman L	+0.8%	Didn't play
VAN
Linus Karlsson C	+0.7%	Played
Jake DeBrusk L	+0.6%	Played
Elias Pettersson C	+0.5%	Played
Zeev Buium D	+0.4%	Played
Marco Rossi C	+0.4%	Played

Defender numbers are a rough guide: tested on 2021-26 lineups, the defensive side of the injury adjustment is too small and noisy to prove on its own (it swings season to season). Attacker numbers hold up every season. Rebuilt after the fact (no pre-game snapshot was saved that day): Played = dressed for the game (NHL box score), effects as of that game day.

AVOID: VAN projects under the 2.95-goal high-scoring cutoff (VAN 2.74). The 6.41 total looks high, but most of it comes from EDM; the over rule needs both teams scoring. At 5-on-5, EDM is great (2.38) and VAN is trash (1.77); on the power play, EDM is great (0.68) and VAN is good (0.59). EDM faces Kevin Lankinen, a Trash goalie, grade 1 (+6.2%); VAN faces Devon Levi, an OK goalie, grade 28 (-0.4%). EDM 3.67: 0.67 goals above what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: 5-on-5 matchup +0.32 (its attack ranks #6 of 32, VAN's defense #31); Kevin Lankinen in goal +0.22 (a Trash goalie, grade 1, +6.2%); power play +0.13 (its power play ranks #2, VAN's penalty kill and penalty habits #25). VAN 2.74: 0.26 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: power play +0.04 (its power play ranks #11, EDM's penalty kill and penalty habits #18). Holding it back: 5-on-5 matchup -0.29 (its attack ranks #32 of 32, EDM's defense #8); Devon Levi in goal -0.01 (an OK goalie, grade 28, -0.4%). The model projects 6.41 total goals against a 6.5 line, with a 50% chance of 7 or more (a typical game is about 45%). Games like this went over only 47-49% of the time in 2021-26. Final: 16 goals (EDM 9, VAN 7), so it went over 6.5 and the call was wrong.

9:30 PM ETAVOID

O 5.5 ✗ went over

CHI#32 OFF / #31 DEF02.70●

A. Soderblom ✓ Trash 1

UTA#14 OFF / #9 DEF63.59●

K. Vejmelka ✓ Mid 51

6 goals · proj 6.29 · P(7+) 49%

	5v5	PP	Gl	Oth	B2B	Spd	Inj
CHI	1.85	0.51	-2.3%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a
UTA	2.46	0.58	+4.7%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a

Why this call

Team	5-on-5
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
CHI	1.90#28 of 32	2.01#10 of 32	1.85goals
UTA	2.18#5 of 32	2.32#32 of 32	2.46goals

Team	Power play
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
CHI	0.47#28 of 32	0.60#28 of 32	0.51goals
UTA	0.55#18 of 32	0.57#18 of 32	0.58goals

Key players: top 5 attackers & defenders

Top 5 attackers
Player	If out	Played?
CHI
Tyler Bertuzzi L	-2.3%	Played
Connor Bedard C	-2.2%	Didn't play
Frank Nazar C	-0.7%	Played
Ryan Donato C	-0.6%	Played
Teuvo Teravainen C	-0.6%	Played
UTA
Dylan Guenther R	-4.0%	Played
Clayton Keller R	-3.8%	Played
Nick Schmaltz C	-3.6%	Played
Logan Cooley C	-2.1%	Played
Mikhail Sergachev D	-1.4%	Played

Top 5 defenders
Player	If out	Played?
CHI
Andrew Mangiapane L	+0.6%	Didn't play
Tyler Bertuzzi L	+0.4%	Played
Ryan Donato C	+0.2%	Played
Sam Rinzel D	+0.2%	Played
Oliver Moore C	+0.2%	Played
UTA
Clayton Keller R	+1.6%	Played
Nate Schmidt D	+1.4%	Played
Nick Schmaltz C	+1.0%	Played
Barrett Hayton C	+0.9%	Played
Michael Carcone L	+0.9%	Played

AVOID: CHI projects under the 2.95-goal high-scoring cutoff (CHI 2.70); the line is 5.5, and only 6 and 6.5 qualify. The 6.29 total looks high, but most of it comes from UTA; the over rule needs both teams scoring. At 5-on-5, CHI is bad (1.85) and UTA is great (2.46); on the power play, CHI is bad (0.51) and UTA is mid (0.58). CHI faces Karel Vejmelka, a Mid goalie, grade 51 (-2.3%); UTA faces Arvid Soderblom, a Trash goalie, grade 1 (+4.7%). CHI 2.70: 0.30 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Holding it back: 5-on-5 matchup -0.20 (its attack ranks #28 of 32, UTA's defense #10); Karel Vejmelka in goal -0.06 (a Mid goalie, grade 51, -2.3%); power play -0.04 (its power play ranks #28, UTA's penalty kill and penalty habits #28). UTA 3.59: 0.59 goals above what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: 5-on-5 matchup +0.40 (its attack ranks #5 of 32, CHI's defense #32); Arvid Soderblom in goal +0.16 (a Trash goalie, grade 1, +4.7%); power play +0.02 (its power play ranks #18, CHI's penalty kill and penalty habits #18). The model projects 6.29 total goals against a 5.5 line, with a 49% chance of 7 or more (a typical game is about 45%). Games like this went over only 47-49% of the time in 2021-26. Final: 6 goals (CHI 0, UTA 6), so it went over 5.5 and the call was wrong.

10:00 PM ETPASS

O 6.5 ✗ went over
paper W +0.95u

FLA#20 OFF / #12 DEF33.27●

A. Schmid ✓ OK 23

SJS#22 OFF / #29 DEF42.96●

Y. Askarov ✓ Trash 1

7 goals · proj 6.23 · P(7+) 49%

	5v5	PP	Gl	Oth	B2B	Spd	Inj
FLA	2.02	0.65	+6.6%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a
SJS	1.96	0.60	+0.1%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a

Why this call

Team	5-on-5
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
FLA	1.98#20 of 32	2.11#22 of 32	2.02goals
SJS	2.01#17 of 32	2.01#10 of 32	1.96goals

Team	Power play
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
FLA	0.59#9 of 32	0.61#32 of 32	0.65goals
SJS	0.57#12 of 32	0.58#23 of 32	0.60goals

Key players: top 5 attackers & defenders

Top 5 attackers
Player	If out	Played?
FLA
Sam Reinhart C	-3.4%	Played
Sam Bennett C	-3.1%	Played
Carter Verhaeghe C	-2.8%	Played
Brad Marchand L	-2.2%	Didn't play
Matthew Tkachuk L	-2.1%	Played
SJS
Macklin Celebrini C	-4.9%	Played
Will Smith C	-2.0%	Played
Tyler Toffoli C	-2.0%	Played
Alexander Wennberg C	-0.9%	Played
Kiefer Sherwood L	-0.8%	Played

Top 5 defenders
Player	If out	Played?
FLA
Niko Mikkola D	+0.8%	Played
Uvis Balinskis D	+0.8%	Played
Carter Verhaeghe C	+0.8%	Played
Sam Bennett C	+0.7%	Played
Sam Reinhart C	+0.6%	Played
SJS
Macklin Celebrini C	+0.8%	Played
Tyler Toffoli C	+0.7%	Played
Dmitry Orlov D	+0.6%	Played
Will Smith C	+0.5%	Played
Adam Gaudette R	+0.5%	Didn't play

PASS: both teams project as high-scoring (FLA 3.27, SJS 2.96; cutoff 2.95) and the line is 6.5, but neither is great at 5-on-5 (FLA mid, SJS mid) and they aren't both good, so there's no team to carry the over. At 5-on-5, FLA is mid (2.02) and SJS is mid (1.96); on the power play, FLA is great (0.65) and SJS is good (0.60). FLA faces Yaroslav Askarov, a Trash goalie, grade 1 (+6.6%); SJS faces Akira Schmid, an OK goalie, grade 23 (+0.1%). FLA 3.27: 0.27 goals above what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: Yaroslav Askarov in goal +0.20 (a Trash goalie, grade 1, +6.6%); power play +0.10 (its power play ranks #9, SJS's penalty kill and penalty habits #32). Holding it back: 5-on-5 matchup -0.03 (its attack ranks #20 of 32, SJS's defense #22). SJS 2.96: 0.05 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: power play +0.05 (its power play ranks #12, FLA's penalty kill and penalty habits #23). Holding it back: 5-on-5 matchup -0.10 (its attack ranks #17 of 32, FLA's defense #10). The model projects 6.23 total goals against a 6.5 line, with a 49% chance of 7 or more (a typical game is about 45%). Flagged games like this went over only 47% of the time in 2021-26. Final: 7 goals (FLA 3, SJS 4), so it went over 6.5 and the call was wrong.

8:00 PM ETAVOID

U 6.5 ✓ under

MIN#9 OFF / #8 DEF33.09●

J. Wallstedt ✓ Mid 43

NSH#16 OFF / #26 DEF12.82●

J. Saros ✓ OK 38

4 goals · proj 5.92 · P(7+) 46%

	5v5	PP	Gl	Oth	B2B	Spd	Inj
MIN	2.12	0.61	-1.2%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a
NSH	1.96	0.52	-1.6%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a

Why this call

Team	5-on-5
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
MIN	2.07#15 of 32	2.12#23 of 32	2.12goals
NSH	2.00#18 of 32	2.02#12 of 32	1.96goals

Team	Power play
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
MIN	0.61#8 of 32	0.56#16 of 32	0.61goals
NSH	0.56#16 of 32	0.52#7 of 32	0.52goals

Key players: top 5 attackers & defenders

Top 5 attackers
Player	If out	Played?
MIN
Kirill Kaprizov L	-5.3%	Played
Matt Boldy L	-4.2%	Played
Quinn Hughes D	-2.5%	Played
Joel Eriksson Ek C	-2.3%	Played
Ryan Hartman R	-0.8%	Played
NSH
Filip Forsberg L	-4.2%	Played
Steven Stamkos C	-4.0%	Played
Ryan O'Reilly C	-3.0%	Played
Roman Josi D	-1.4%	Played
Jonathan Marchessault R	-1.1%	Played

Top 5 defenders
Player	If out	Played?
MIN
Quinn Hughes D	+1.8%	Played
Kirill Kaprizov L	+1.5%	Played
Jared Spurgeon D	+1.0%	Played
Matt Boldy L	+1.0%	Played
Bobby Brink R	+0.9%	Played
NSH
Filip Forsberg L	+0.7%	Played
Steven Stamkos C	+0.7%	Played
Roman Josi D	+0.4%	Played
Adam Wilsby D	+0.4%	Played
Jonathan Marchessault R	+0.2%	Played

AVOID: NSH projects under the 2.95-goal high-scoring cutoff (NSH 2.82). At 5-on-5, MIN is good (2.12) and NSH is mid (1.96); on the power play, MIN is good (0.61) and NSH is bad (0.52). MIN faces Juuse Saros, an OK goalie, grade 38 (-1.2%); NSH faces Jesper Wallstedt, a Mid goalie, grade 43 (-1.6%). MIN 3.09: 0.09 goals above what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: 5-on-5 matchup +0.07 (its attack ranks #15 of 32, NSH's defense #23); power play +0.06 (its power play ranks #8, NSH's penalty kill and penalty habits #16). Holding it back: Juuse Saros in goal -0.04 (an OK goalie, grade 38, -1.2%). NSH 2.82: 0.18 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Holding it back: 5-on-5 matchup -0.10 (its attack ranks #18 of 32, MIN's defense #12); Jesper Wallstedt in goal -0.05 (a Mid goalie, grade 43, -1.6%); power play -0.03 (its power play ranks #16, MIN's penalty kill and penalty habits #7). The model projects 5.92 total goals against a 6.5 line, with a 46% chance of 7 or more (a typical game is about 45%). Games like this went over only 47-49% of the time in 2021-26. Final: 4 goals (MIN 3, NSH 1), so it stayed under 6.5 and the call was right.

7:00 PM ETAVOID

O 5.5 ✗ went over

BUF#13 OFF / #22 DEF32.82●

U. Luukkonen ✓ Mid 44

CBJ#15 OFF / #21 DEF62.96●

J. Greaves ✓ Strong 97

9 goals · proj 5.78 · P(7+) 44%

	5v5	PP	Gl	Oth	B2B	Spd	Inj
BUF	2.16	0.59	-10.3%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a
CBJ	2.15	0.46	-1.7%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a

Why this call

Team	5-on-5
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
BUF	2.19#4 of 32	2.03#15 of 32	2.16goals
CBJ	2.11#13 of 32	2.10#20 of 32	2.15goals

Team	Power play
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
BUF	0.54#21 of 32	0.60#29 of 32	0.59goals
CBJ	0.47#29 of 32	0.55#15 of 32	0.46goals

Key players: top 5 attackers & defenders

Top 5 attackers
Player	If out	Played?
BUF
Tage Thompson C	-4.7%	Played
Rasmus Dahlin D	-2.4%	Played
Jason Zucker L	-2.2%	Didn't play
Josh Doan R	-1.9%	Played
Jack Quinn R	-1.9%	Played
CBJ
Zach Werenski D	-2.4%	Played
Adam Fantilli C	-2.2%	Played
Sean Monahan C	-1.5%	Played
Dmitri Voronkov L	-1.4%	Played
Charlie Coyle C	-1.3%	Played

Top 5 defenders
Player	If out	Played?
BUF
Rasmus Dahlin D	+1.2%	Played
Josh Doan R	+1.1%	Played
Noah Ostlund C	+0.9%	Played
Zach Benson L	+0.9%	Played
Tage Thompson C	+0.8%	Played
CBJ
Kent Johnson C	+0.8%	Played
Adam Fantilli C	+0.8%	Played
Zach Werenski D	+0.6%	Played
Dmitri Voronkov L	+0.5%	Played
Denton Mateychuk D	+0.4%	Played

AVOID: BUF projects under the 2.95-goal high-scoring cutoff (BUF 2.82); the line is 5.5, and only 6 and 6.5 qualify. At 5-on-5, BUF is good (2.16) and CBJ is good (2.15); on the power play, BUF is mid (0.59) and CBJ is bad (0.46). BUF faces Jet Greaves, a Strong goalie, grade 97 (-10.3%); CBJ faces Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen, a Mid goalie, grade 44 (-1.7%). BUF 2.82: 0.18 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: 5-on-5 matchup +0.11 (its attack ranks #4 of 32, CBJ's defense #15); power play +0.03 (its power play ranks #21, CBJ's penalty kill and penalty habits #29). Holding it back: Jet Greaves in goal -0.32 (a Strong goalie, grade 97, -10.3%). CBJ 2.96: 0.04 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: 5-on-5 matchup +0.10 (its attack ranks #13 of 32, BUF's defense #20). Holding it back: power play -0.09 (its power play ranks #29, BUF's penalty kill and penalty habits #15); Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen in goal -0.05 (a Mid goalie, grade 44, -1.7%). The model projects 5.78 total goals against a 5.5 line, with a 44% chance of 7 or more (a typical game is about 45%). Games like this went over only 47-49% of the time in 2021-26. Final: 9 goals (BUF 3, CBJ 6), so it went over 5.5 and the call was wrong.

9:00 PM ETAVOID

O 5.5 ✗ went over

SEA#29 OFF / #25 DEF62.85●

J. Daccord ✓ Mid 45

CGY#26 OFF / #27 DEF12.72●

D. Wolf ✓ OK 30

7 goals · proj 5.57 · P(7+) 43%

	5v5	PP	Gl	Oth	B2B	Spd	Inj
SEA	1.98	0.50	-0.6%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a
CGY	1.95	0.43	-1.8%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a

Why this call

Team	5-on-5
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
SEA	1.89#29 of 32	2.16#30 of 32	1.98goals
CGY	1.93#24 of 32	2.08#19 of 32	1.95goals

Team	Power play
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
SEA	0.50#25 of 32	0.55#12 of 32	0.50goals
CGY	0.45#32 of 32	0.53#8 of 32	0.43goals

Key players: top 5 attackers & defenders

Top 5 attackers
Player	If out	Played?
SEA
Jordan Eberle R	-2.0%	Played
Jared McCann L	-1.6%	Played
Bobby McMann C	-1.5%	Played
Matty Beniers C	-1.1%	Played
Shane Wright C	-0.9%	Played
CGY
Matt Coronato R	-1.5%	Played
Morgan Frost C	-1.3%	Played
Jonathan Huberdeau L	-0.9%	Didn't play
Mikael Backlund C	-0.4%	Played
Ryan Strome C	-0.4%	Played

Top 5 defenders
Player	If out	Played?
SEA
Jordan Eberle R	+0.9%	Played
Shane Wright C	+0.8%	Played
Matty Beniers C	+0.7%	Played
Ryker Evans D	+0.6%	Played
Brandon Montour D	+0.6%	Played
CGY
Morgan Frost C	+0.9%	Played
Connor Zary C	+0.8%	Played
Joel Hanley D	+0.6%	Didn't play
Matt Coronato R	+0.4%	Played
Adam Klapka R	+0.4%	Played

AVOID: SEA and CGY project under the 2.95-goal high-scoring cutoff (SEA 2.85, CGY 2.72); the line is 5.5, and only 6 and 6.5 qualify. At 5-on-5, SEA is mid (1.98) and CGY is mid (1.95); on the power play, SEA is bad (0.50) and CGY is trash (0.43). SEA faces Dustin Wolf, an OK goalie, grade 30 (-0.6%); CGY faces Joey Daccord, a Mid goalie, grade 45 (-1.8%). SEA 2.85: 0.15 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Holding it back: 5-on-5 matchup -0.08 (its attack ranks #29 of 32, CGY's defense #30); power play -0.06 (its power play ranks #25, CGY's penalty kill and penalty habits #12); Dustin Wolf in goal -0.02 (an OK goalie, grade 30, -0.6%). CGY 2.72: 0.29 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Holding it back: power play -0.12 (its power play ranks #32, SEA's penalty kill and penalty habits #8); 5-on-5 matchup -0.11 (its attack ranks #24 of 32, SEA's defense #19); Joey Daccord in goal -0.05 (a Mid goalie, grade 45, -1.8%). The model projects 5.57 total goals against a 5.5 line, with a 43% chance of 7 or more (a typical game is about 45%). Games like this went over only 47-49% of the time in 2021-26. Final: 7 goals (SEA 6, CGY 1), so it went over 5.5 and the call was wrong.

7:00 PM ETAVOID

U 5.5 ✓ under

PHI#31 OFF / #10 DEF22.38●

J. Woll ✓ Good 61

NJD#17 OFF / #13 DEF32.90●

J. Allen ✓ Good 74

5 goals · proj 5.28 · P(7+) 40%

	5v5	PP	Gl	Oth	B2B	Spd	Inj
PHI	1.88	0.43	-4.4%	0.39	-8.0%	n/a	n/a
NJD	1.84	0.58	-3.1%	0.39	+6.5%	n/a	n/a

Why this call

Team	5-on-5
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
PHI	1.87#30 of 32	2.07#18 of 32	1.88goals
NJD	1.91#27 of 32	1.99#9 of 32	1.84goals

Team	Power play
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
PHI	0.49#26 of 32	0.49#3 of 32	0.43goals
NJD	0.54#19 of 32	0.59#26 of 32	0.58goals

Key players: top 5 attackers & defenders

Top 5 attackers
Player	If out	Played?
PHI
Travis Konecny R	-2.0%	Played
Trevor Zegras C	-1.9%	Played
Matvei Michkov R	-1.8%	Played
Owen Tippett R	-1.6%	Played
Tyson Foerster R	-0.5%	Played
NJD
Jack Hughes C	-3.6%	Played
Nico Hischier C	-3.6%	Played
Jesper Bratt L	-3.4%	Played
Timo Meier R	-1.9%	Played
Dougie Hamilton D	-1.3%	Played

Top 5 defenders
Player	If out	Played?
PHI
Jamie Drysdale D	+1.1%	Played
Owen Tippett R	+1.0%	Played
Noah Cates L	+0.9%	Played
Matvei Michkov R	+0.9%	Played
Trevor Zegras C	+0.8%	Played
NJD
Jack Hughes C	+1.0%	Played
Luke Hughes D	+1.0%	Played
Jesper Bratt L	+0.9%	Played
Dougie Hamilton D	+0.9%	Played
Timo Meier R	+0.8%	Played

AVOID: PHI and NJD project under the 2.95-goal high-scoring cutoff (PHI 2.38, NJD 2.90); the line is 5.5, and only 6 and 6.5 qualify. At 5-on-5, PHI is bad (1.88) and NJD is bad (1.84); on the power play, PHI is trash (0.43) and NJD is mid (0.58). PHI faces Jake Allen, a Good goalie, grade 74 (-4.4%); NJD faces Joseph Woll, a Good goalie, grade 61 (-3.1%). Other factors: PHI played yesterday (-8%); NJD's opponent played yesterday (+6.5%). PHI 2.38: 0.62 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Holding it back: back-to-back -0.21 (it played yesterday, -8.0%); 5-on-5 matchup -0.17 (its attack ranks #30 of 32, NJD's defense #18); power play -0.12 (its power play ranks #26, NJD's penalty kill and penalty habits #3); Jake Allen in goal -0.12 (a Good goalie, grade 74, -4.4%). NJD 2.90: 0.10 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: back-to-back +0.18 (PHI played yesterday, +6.5%); power play +0.02 (its power play ranks #19, PHI's penalty kill and penalty habits #26). Holding it back: 5-on-5 matchup -0.22 (its attack ranks #27 of 32, PHI's defense #9); Joseph Woll in goal -0.09 (a Good goalie, grade 61, -3.1%). The model projects 5.28 total goals against a 5.5 line, with a 40% chance of 7 or more (a typical game is about 45%). Games like this went over only 47-49% of the time in 2021-26. Final: 5 goals (PHI 2, NJD 3), so it stayed under 5.5 and the call was right.

7:00 PM ETAVOID

O 5.5 ✗ went over

TBL#6 OFF / #5 DEF12.81●

A. Vasilevskiy ✓ Strong 98

NYR#28 OFF / #23 DEF52.42●

I. Shesterkin ✓ Strong 98

6 goals · proj 5.23 · P(7+) 40%

	5v5	PP	Gl	Oth	B2B	Spd	Inj
TBL	2.22	0.56	-11.2%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a
NYR	1.76	0.57	-11.2%	0.39	–	n/a	n/a

Why this call

Team	5-on-5
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
TBL	2.25#3 of 32	2.04#16 of 32	2.22goals
NYR	1.86#31 of 32	1.95#4 of 32	1.76goals

Team	Power play
Team	OFF	OPP DEF	Proj
TBL	0.56#15 of 32	0.55#12 of 32	0.56goals
NYR	0.55#17 of 32	0.57#20 of 32	0.57goals

Key players: top 5 attackers & defenders

Top 5 attackers
Player	If out	Played?
TBL
Nikita Kucherov R	-7.2%	Played
Jake Guentzel C	-5.1%	Played
Brandon Hagel L	-5.0%	Played
Brayden Point C	-3.2%	Played
Anthony Cirelli C	-2.8%	Played
NYR
Mika Zibanejad C	-3.1%	Played
Alexis Lafrenière L	-2.4%	Played
J.T. Miller C	-2.1%	Played
Adam Fox D	-1.6%	Played
Will Cuylle L	-0.8%	Played

Top 5 defenders
Player	If out	Played?
TBL
Gage Goncalves C	+1.2%	Played
Pontus Holmberg R	+1.1%	Played
Nikita Kucherov R	+1.0%	Played
Jake Guentzel C	+0.9%	Played
Charle-Edouard D'Astous D	+0.8%	Played
NYR
Alexis Lafrenière L	+0.8%	Played
Adam Fox D	+0.6%	Played
Gabe Perreault R	+0.4%	Played
Vladislav Gavrikov D	+0.4%	Played
Tye Kartye L	+0.3%	Played

AVOID: TBL and NYR project under the 2.95-goal high-scoring cutoff (TBL 2.81, NYR 2.42); the line is 5.5, and only 6 and 6.5 qualify. At 5-on-5, TBL is great (2.22) and NYR is trash (1.76); on the power play, TBL is mid (0.56) and NYR is mid (0.57). TBL faces Igor Shesterkin, a Strong goalie, grade 98 (-11.2%); NYR faces Andrei Vasilevskiy, a Strong goalie, grade 98 (-11.2%). TBL 2.81: 0.19 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: 5-on-5 matchup +0.16 (its attack ranks #3 of 32, NYR's defense #16). Holding it back: Igor Shesterkin in goal -0.35 (a Strong goalie, grade 98, -11.2%). NYR 2.42: 0.59 goals below what an average team would score (3.00). Pushing it up: power play +0.02 (its power play ranks #17, TBL's penalty kill and penalty habits #20). Holding it back: Andrei Vasilevskiy in goal -0.31 (a Strong goalie, grade 98, -11.2%); 5-on-5 matchup -0.30 (its attack ranks #31 of 32, TBL's defense #4). The model projects 5.23 total goals against a 5.5 line, with a 40% chance of 7 or more (a typical game is about 45%). Games like this went over only 47-49% of the time in 2021-26. Final: 6 goals (TBL 1, NYR 5), so it went over 5.5 and the call was wrong.