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.
- 01Michael Carcone – Jack McBain – Daniil ButTogether this unit controls play outright — 66% of expected goals, 6 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.124 min together 60 +6 → proj 6666.0%· obs.
- 02Nick Schmaltz – Clayton Keller – Barrett HaytonTogether this unit controls play outright — 62% of expected goals, 7 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.183 min together 55 +7 → proj 6262.0%· obs.
- 03Kailer Yamamoto – Dylan Guenther – Logan CooleyTogether this unit controls play outright — 57% of expected goals, about what the talent on it predicts.123 min together 55 +2 → proj 5757.0%· obs.
- 04Liam O'Brien – Kevin Stenlund – Brandon TanevTogether this unit plays about even — 50% of expected goals, 7 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.178 min together 43 +7 → proj 5050.0%· obs.
- 01Ian Cole – Nick DeSimoneTogether this unit controls play outright — 57% of expected goals, 24 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.354 min together 34 +24 → proj 5757.0%· obs.
- 02Nate Schmidt – John MarinoTogether this unit controls play outright — 56% of expected goals, 25 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.991 min together 31 +25 → proj 5656.0%· obs.
- 03Mikhail Sergachev – Sean DurziTogether this unit tilts the ice — 52% of expected goals, 23 points better than these players' profiles predict. Real chemistry.494 min together 29 +23 → proj 5252.0%· obs.