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
- Lines recovered from MoneyPuck lines.csv (5on5, observed deployment); chemistry = observed xG% minus additive archetype base. Model-estimated.
- 01Mikael Backlund – Blake Coleman – Samuel HonzekTogether this unit controls play outright — 58% of expected goals, 5 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.149 min together 53 +5 → proj 5858.0%· obs.
- 02Justin Kirkland – Ryan Lomberg – Adam KlapkaTogether this unit tilts the ice — 54% of expected goals, 11 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.89 min together 43 +11 → proj 5454.0%· obs.
- 03Jonathan Huberdeau – Morgan Frost – Matt CoronatoTogether this unit plays about even — 51% of expected goals, 5 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.242 min together 46 +5 → proj 5151.0%· obs.
- 04Ryan Strome – Victor Olofsson – Yegor SharangovichTogether this unit gets buried territorially — 43% of expected goals, 4 points WORSE than the talent predicts — worse together than apart.103 min together 47 -4 → proj 4343.0%· obs.
- 01Joel Hanley – Brayden PachalTogether this unit tilts the ice — 53% of expected goals, 24 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.202 min together 29 +24 → proj 5353.0%· obs.
- 02Olli Mtt – Hunter BrzustewiczTogether this unit plays about even — 50% of expected goals, 22 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.203 min together 28 +22 → proj 5050.0%· obs.
- 03Zach Whitecloud – Yan KuznetsovTogether this unit spends the night chasing — 46% of expected goals, 23 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.124 min together 24 +23 → proj 4646.0%· obs.