Team · 2026–27
Red Wings Advanced Stats
Seven dimensions of winning, as league percentiles, against the average of the top three teams in the standings right now.
| Percentiles | Detroit | Top three |
|---|---|---|
| Finishing | 6.5 | 50.5 |
| Goaltending | 58.1 | 62.4 |
| Attacking | 58.1 | 74.2 |
| Defending | 32.3 | 69.9 |
| Possession | 61.3 | 65.6 |
| Power play | 90.3 | 76.3 |
| Penalty kill | 22.6 | 93.5 |
league percentiles, 2026–27 · top three = Carolina, NY Rangers, Vegas
Record
Standings by expected goals
The same games, scored on the chances each team created and allowed instead of the goals that went in. Every team gets the same treatment: an xG-Pythagorean win share on MoneyPuck's all-situations expected goals, converted to points with loser points at the league rate.
Atlantic Division
| xG | Team | xG pts | Actual | Gap | Place |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tampa Bay | 8.1 | 8 | −0.1 | 3rd |
| 2 | Florida | 8.0 | 8 | 0.0 | 4th |
| 3 | Buffalo | 8.0 | 7 | −1.0 | 5th |
| 4 | Boston | 7.8 | 10 | +2.2 | 1st |
| 5 | Ottawa | 7.5 | 10 | +2.5 | 2nd |
| 6 | Montréal | 7.4 | 7 | −0.4 | 6th |
| 7 | Detroit | 6.5 | 4 | −2.5 | 8th |
| 8 | Toronto | 6.2 | 7 | +0.8 | 7th |
Eastern Conference
| xG | Team | xG pts | Actual | Gap | Place |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carolina | 12.6 | 13 | +0.4 | 1st |
| 2 | NY Rangers | 10.4 | 12 | +1.6 | 2nd |
| 3 | Tampa Bay | 8.1 | 8 | −0.1 | 5th |
| 4 | Florida | 8.0 | 8 | 0.0 | 6th |
| 5 | Buffalo | 8.0 | 7 | −1.0 | 8th |
| 6 | New Jersey | 7.9 | 6 | −1.9 | 12th |
| 7 | Boston | 7.8 | 10 | +2.2 | 3rd |
| 8 | Pittsburgh | 7.8 | 7 | −0.8 | 9th |
| 9 | Ottawa | 7.5 | 10 | +2.5 | 4th |
| 10 | Montréal | 7.4 | 7 | −0.4 | 10th |
| 11 | Washington | 7.0 | 8 | +1.0 | 7th |
| 12 | Detroit | 6.5 | 4 | −2.5 | 14th |
| 13 | Toronto | 6.2 | 7 | +0.8 | 11th |
| 14 | NY Islanders | 5.6 | 6 | +0.4 | 13th |
| 15 | Columbus | 5.3 | 4 | −1.3 | 15th |
| 16 | Philadelphia | 4.7 | 3 | −1.7 | 16th |
Gap: actual points minus xG points. Red marks a team that beat its chances by eight points or more. Place: actual standings place within the group.
Every situation
| Situation | xGF% | CF% | xGF | xGA | GF | GA | Minutes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All situations | 50.0% | 52.0% | 20.0 | 20.2 | 14 | 19 | 366 |
| Five-on-five17th xGF% · 13th CF% | 51.0% | 52.0% | 12.8 | 12.5 | 10 | 10 | 292 |
| Power play (5v4)6th in expected goals generated | 95.0% | 87.0% | 5.4 | 0.3 | 3 | 0 | 33 |
| Penalty kill (4v5) | 5.0% | 8.0% | 0.2 | 4.5 | 0 | 6 | 32 |
Rank 1 is best in every tile; red marks a top-ten rank. Source: MoneyPuck, 2026–27.
The season, game by game
Goal differential per game · in order · red won, black lost
Points pace · cumulative points by game
Lines, pairs and goaltending
Five-on-five units by ice time
| Unit | TOI | xG% | CF% | GF–GA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandsegg – Nygrd – Finnie – Debrincat | 50 | 64.0% | 59.0% | 7–1 |
| Raymond – Larkin – Arvidsson | 47 | 50.0% | 54.0% | 1–3 |
| Rasmussen – Copp – Kolesar | 39 | 34.0% | 37.0% | 0–2 |
| Raymond – Copp – Debrincat | 22 | 38.0% | 53.0% | 0–0 |
| Compher – Finnie – Arvidsson | 11 | 29.0% | 47.0% | 0–0 |
| Johansson – Seider | 51 | 67.0% | 60.0% | 1–1 |
| Chiarot – Seider | 33 | 61.0% | 49.0% | 1–0 |
| Faulk – Johansson | 31 | 57.0% | 60.0% | 1–0 |
Five most-used forward lines and three most-used pairs. Red marks a unit at 55% expected goals or better.
Goaltending
| Goalie | GP | Record | SV% | GAA | GSAx | Pctl |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Gibson | 5 | 1–3–1 | .863 | 3.76 | −3.0 | — |
| Daniil Tarasov | 2 | 0–0–1 | .974 | 0.66 | +4.0 | — |
GSAx: goals saved above expected, all situations, MoneyPuck. Pctl: league percentile among goalies with 600+ minutes.
Rebuilt oct 15, 8:00 am et · NHL API · MoneyPuck · xG-Pythagorean (exponent 2) on MoneyPuck all-situations xGF/xGA; points = share x 2 x GP plus loser points at the league-wide rate; placement ranks all 32 teams the same way.