xJawn NHL expected goals

Playoff standings

2025-26 · playoffs · 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 record 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.

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 GF GA xGF xGA xGF% xGF/60 xGA/60 Shooting Saving Adj xGF%
CAR Carolina Hurricanes Eastern Metropolitan 19 16 3 46 28 45.9 37.4 55.1% 2.88 2.34 -1.4 +3.0 53.8%
PIT Pittsburgh Penguins Eastern Metropolitan 6 2 4 5 11 10.6 8.8 54.7% 2.14 1.77 +0.7 +0.0 55.3%
COL Colorado Avalanche Western Central 13 8 5 27 22 26.0 21.9 54.2% 2.44 2.06 +1.3 +1.1 54.2%
BUF Buffalo Sabres Eastern Atlantic 13 7 6 28 25 29.4 25.0 54.0% 2.89 2.46 +2.2 +0.9 52.6%
VGK Vegas Golden Knights Western Pacific 22 14 8 49 45 44.4 39.0 53.2% 2.39 2.10 +3.4 +1.0 53.7%
DAL Dallas Stars Western Central 6 2 4 4 14 11.3 10.0 53.0% 2.13 1.89 +1.1 +0.9 54.0%
TBL Tampa Bay Lightning Eastern Atlantic 7 3 4 9 11 11.9 11.5 50.8% 2.15 2.08 +1.3 +0.8 51.9%
EDM Edmonton Oilers Western Pacific 6 2 4 17 14 11.4 11.3 50.3% 2.26 2.23 +0.8 +0.3 50.6%
ANA Anaheim Ducks Western Pacific 12 6 6 22 28 21.8 23.1 48.5% 2.22 2.35 +0.9 +0.8 47.9%
BOS Boston Bruins Eastern Atlantic 6 2 4 9 15 10.1 11.5 46.8% 2.17 2.47 +1.1 +1.1 49.1%
OTT Ottawa Senators Eastern Atlantic 4 0 4 3 7 9.6 10.9 46.8% 2.81 3.20 +0.1 +0.5 46.5%
MIN Minnesota Wild Western Central 11 5 6 25 18 19.1 22.5 45.8% 2.02 2.38 +2.0 +1.2 46.2%
UTA Utah Mammoth Western Central 6 2 4 17 14 10.4 12.5 45.4% 1.97 2.36 +1.0 +0.5 46.2%
PHI Philadelphia Flyers Eastern Metropolitan 10 4 6 14 14 15.4 19.4 44.3% 1.93 2.42 +0.3 +0.3 43.9%
MTL Montréal Canadiens Eastern Atlantic 19 9 10 34 36 34.7 44.7 43.7% 2.28 2.94 +1.0 +5.0 44.6%
LAK Los Angeles Kings Western Pacific 4 0 4 2 9 5.5 7.9 40.9% 1.67 2.42 +0.0 +0.2 39.0%

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.