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.
- 01Kaapo Kakko – Jani Nyman – Shane WrightTogether this unit controls play outright — 65% of expected goals, 17 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.72 min together 48 +17 → proj 6565.0%· obs.
- 02Ryan Winterton – Jacob Melanson – Ben MeyersTogether this unit controls play outright — 63% of expected goals, 9 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.79 min together 54 +9 → proj 6363.0%· obs.
- 03Jordan Eberle – Jared McCann – Matty BeniersTogether this unit controls play outright — 56% of expected goals, 10 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.337 min together 46 +10 → proj 5656.0%· obs.
- 04Chandler Stephenson – Eeli Tolvanen – Berkly CattonTogether this unit gets buried territorially — 42% of expected goals, 6 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.89 min together 36 +6 → proj 4242.0%· obs.
- 01Brandon Montour – Ryker EvansTogether this unit tilts the ice — 53% of expected goals, 23 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.162 min together 30 +23 → proj 5353.0%· obs.
- 02Adam Larsson – Vince DunnTogether this unit spends the night chasing — 45% of expected goals, 19 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.1219 min together 26 +19 → proj 4545.0%· obs.
- 03Ryan Lindgren – Cale FleuryTogether this unit gets buried territorially — 41% of expected goals, 15 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.205 min together 26 +15 → proj 4141.0%· obs.