xJawn NHL expected goals
Today's puzzle Remember Some Guys — name the skater from the shape of his career. Three clues, one guess a day. Play →

League table

2026-27 · regular season · click a column to sort · xGF% = xGF / (xGF + xGA) · xGF/60 = xGF per 60 min at the selected strength

Conference, division and the W–L–OTL record and points are all-situations official results — they do not move with the strength filter. Everything from GF rightward is the selected strength only.

Shooting and Saving are the modeled columns: goals above league average that this roster's rated finishing was worth on the shots it took, and that its goalies' rated saving removed from the shots it faced. Positive is good on both. Adj xGF% re-scores every shot through both terms at once (the shooter's and the defending goalie's) and re-takes the share, so it still averages 50% across the league exactly as xGF% does.

Last season's ratings on this season's shots. The per-player ratings behind Shooting, Saving and Adj xGF% were fit as of 2026-06-14, before 2026-27 opened, and stay fixed until the season has enough games to refit. They are applied to the shots 2026-27 has actually seen, so the columns update daily with the counts beside them; a player the fit never saw counts as league average.

Read the level of Shooting and Saving with care. Most teams show positive on both, which is an artifact rather than a league of above-average rosters: the ratings are fit as-of the latest date across sixteen seasons, and league finishing has risen over that span, so a current-season roster sits above the all-time average by construction. The spread between teams is the meaningful part, not the zero point. Adj xGF% is not affected — the drift lands on both ends of every shot and cancels in the share.

These three are descriptive, not predictive. They say what the roster's rated skill was worth on shots already taken — the same claim as a team page's modeled-talent ledger. They are not a better forecast: tested head-to-head, adjusting the chance share does not out-predict plain xGF% at future goal share (+0.019, p = 0.192), and the goalie half of the adjustment does not carry forward at all. Read them as a description of what happened, and read xGF% when you want the forward-looking number. Ratings are a per-shot quality measure only — never a claim about how many shots a player takes.

Team Conf Div GP W L OTL PTS GF GA xGF xGA xGF% xGF/60 xGA/60 Shooting Saving Adj xGF%
CAR Carolina Hurricanes Eastern Metropolitan 7 5 1 1 11 17 13 16.8 10.9 60.7% 3.20 2.07 -0.2 +0.5 59.4%
UTA Utah Mammoth Western Central 6 4 2 0 8 12 9 16.7 11.1 60.0% 3.53 2.35 +0.7 +0.2 58.6%
COL Colorado Avalanche Western Central 5 3 2 0 6 22 11 12.7 8.6 59.4% 3.13 2.13 +0.8 +0.5 59.9%
VGK Vegas Golden Knights Western Pacific 7 5 2 0 10 14 13 15.5 11.0 58.4% 2.73 1.94 +1.1 +0.2 58.6%
FLA Florida Panthers Eastern Atlantic 6 2 2 2 6 7 7 9.8 7.0 58.1% 2.24 1.62 -0.1 +0.2 56.9%
EDM Edmonton Oilers Western Pacific 5 4 0 1 9 17 10 9.9 7.5 57.0% 2.54 1.92 +0.7 +0.2 58.4%
TBL Tampa Bay Lightning Eastern Atlantic 5 4 1 0 8 11 8 11.1 8.4 57.0% 2.90 2.19 +0.5 +0.7 57.2%
NJD New Jersey Devils Eastern Metropolitan 5 2 3 0 4 6 10 12.1 9.5 56.0% 3.12 2.45 +0.5 +0.2 55.1%
DET Detroit Red Wings Eastern Atlantic 5 1 3 1 3 6 7 11.1 8.8 55.7% 2.91 2.31 +0.2 +0.5 56.1%
MTL Montréal Canadiens Eastern Atlantic 5 2 2 1 5 8 10 9.9 8.0 55.3% 2.66 2.15 +0.4 +0.7 56.4%
BUF Buffalo Sabres Eastern Atlantic 6 3 3 0 6 10 13 13.1 10.8 54.9% 2.69 2.21 +1.0 +0.3 55.4%
STL St. Louis Blues Western Central 5 2 2 1 5 8 12 10.6 8.8 54.6% 2.66 2.21 +0.5 +0.3 54.0%
BOS Boston Bruins Eastern Atlantic 6 4 2 0 8 14 7 13.1 11.1 54.1% 2.62 2.23 +1.3 +0.8 56.4%
CBJ Columbus Blue Jackets Eastern Metropolitan 4 2 2 0 4 9 8 8.7 7.7 53.3% 2.61 2.29 +0.2 +0.7 54.5%
PIT Pittsburgh Penguins Eastern Metropolitan 6 3 2 1 7 15 11 13.6 12.4 52.2% 2.91 2.66 +0.7 -0.4 50.3%
NYR New York Rangers Eastern Metropolitan 7 5 2 0 10 13 8 14.2 13.1 52.1% 2.50 2.30 +1.3 +1.7 55.1%
NYI New York Islanders Eastern Metropolitan 5 2 3 0 4 9 6 9.5 8.8 52.0% 2.48 2.29 +0.6 +1.1 54.6%
WSH Washington Capitals Eastern Metropolitan 5 3 2 0 6 14 11 11.4 10.7 51.6% 3.01 2.82 +0.6 +1.0 53.2%
MIN Minnesota Wild Western Central 6 4 1 1 9 9 9 11.8 11.3 50.9% 2.49 2.40 +0.4 +0.8 50.6%
DAL Dallas Stars Western Central 5 2 2 1 5 9 3 8.6 8.8 49.4% 2.19 2.24 +0.8 +0.7 51.5%
OTT Ottawa Senators Eastern Atlantic 6 5 1 0 10 11 7 10.2 10.7 48.7% 2.31 2.43 -0.0 +0.3 46.5%
CGY Calgary Flames Western Pacific 5 0 5 0 0 6 22 10.8 11.6 48.4% 2.58 2.75 -0.1 +0.7 48.6%
ANA Anaheim Ducks Western Pacific 5 4 1 0 8 10 9 8.8 9.6 47.9% 2.27 2.47 +0.2 +0.2 47.5%
SEA Seattle Kraken Western Pacific 6 4 2 0 8 22 11 13.6 15.0 47.6% 2.74 3.02 +0.7 +0.3 46.8%
LAK Los Angeles Kings Western Pacific 4 0 2 2 2 4 9 6.1 7.0 46.7% 1.94 2.22 +0.3 +0.3 47.1%
NSH Nashville Predators Western Central 5 2 1 2 6 6 7 7.4 9.9 43.0% 1.88 2.50 +0.6 +1.0 43.6%
WPG Winnipeg Jets Western Central 5 3 1 1 7 9 11 8.5 11.4 42.8% 2.09 2.79 +0.6 +0.4 43.2%
TOR Toronto Maple Leafs Eastern Atlantic 6 3 2 1 7 13 14 10.4 15.2 40.6% 2.26 3.30 +1.1 +1.0 41.3%
VAN Vancouver Canucks Western Pacific 7 2 5 0 4 15 20 10.7 17.4 38.2% 1.88 3.05 +0.3 -0.3 36.9%
CHI Chicago Blackhawks Western Central 6 1 5 0 2 8 17 8.8 16.1 35.2% 1.74 3.20 +0.0 +0.3 33.6%
SJS San Jose Sharks Western Pacific 5 3 2 0 6 7 13 6.0 12.5 32.5% 1.46 3.03 +0.3 -0.1 31.1%
PHI Philadelphia Flyers Eastern Metropolitan 7 0 5 2 2 5 20 8.8 19.7 30.8% 1.59 3.57 +0.4 +0.7 30.5%

Offense vs defense

Each team at its xGF/60 (right = more offense) vs xGA/60 (up = fewer allowed — the y-axis is inverted). The dashed y = x line is equal offense and defense: teams in the top-right outscore expected on both ends. Rates use real time-on-ice at the selected strength. Special teams is asymmetric — the x-axis is power-play xGF/60 and the y-axis is penalty-kill xGA/60, so the axes label a team's two special-teams units.

Chances switches the basis: xG plots the raw model chances, Adjusted xG re-scores every shot through the shooter's rated finishing and the defending goalie's rated saving — the same closed correction behind the Adj xGF% column, so it is descriptive, not a better forecast.