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.
- 01Nick Suzuki – Alexandre Texier – Cole CaufieldTogether this unit controls play outright — 62% of expected goals, 11 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.157 min together 51 +11 → proj 6262.0%· obs.
- 02Brendan Gallagher – Kirby Dach – Zachary BolducTogether this unit controls play outright — 58% of expected goals, 9 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.91 min together 49 +9 → proj 5858.0%· obs.
- 03Oliver Kapanen – Juraj Slafkovsk – Ivan DemidovTogether this unit plays about even — 48% of expected goals, 4 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.364 min together 44 +4 → proj 4848.0%· obs.
- 04Josh Anderson – Jake Evans – Joe VelenoTogether this unit gets buried territorially — 43% of expected goals, about what the talent on it predicts.67 min together 42 +1 → proj 4343.0%· obs.
- 01Noah Dobson – Lane HutsonTogether this unit controls play outright — 59% of expected goals, 28 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.303 min together 31 +28 → proj 5959.0%· obs.
- 02Alexandre Carrier – Kaiden GuhleTogether this unit controls play outright — 57% of expected goals, 31 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.174 min together 27 +31 → proj 5757.0%· obs.
- 03Jayden Struble – Arber XhekajTogether this unit gets buried territorially — 42% of expected goals, 17 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.108 min together 25 +17 → proj 4242.0%· obs.