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.
- 01Brock Nelson – Artturi Lehkonen – Valeri NichushkinTogether this unit controls play outright — 69% of expected goals, 5 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.130 min together 64 +5 → proj 6969.0%· obs.
- 02Parker Kelly – Jack Drury – Joel KivirantaTogether this unit controls play outright — 68% of expected goals, 13 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.177 min together 55 +13 → proj 6868.0%· obs.
- 03Gabriel Landeskog – Nathan MacKinnon – Martin NecasTogether this unit tilts the ice — 52% of expected goals, 4 points WORSE than the talent predicts — worse together than apart.214 min together 56 -4 → proj 5252.0%· obs.
- 01Devon Toews – Sam MalinskiTogether this unit controls play outright — 68% of expected goals, 31 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.244 min together 37 +31 → proj 6868.0%· obs.
- 02Brent Burns – Josh MansonTogether this unit controls play outright — 58% of expected goals, 22 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.807 min together 37 +22 → proj 5858.0%· obs.
- 03Brett Kulak – Cale MakarTogether this unit gets buried territorially — 41% of expected goals, 10 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.103 min together 31 +10 → proj 4141.0%· obs.