ChicagoWolves
Allstate Arena, Rosemont, IL
- 36-21-15
- Record
- 87
- Points
- 225
- Goals for
- 218
- Against
- +7
- Differential
The story
By chance quality CHI were a middle club: 17th of 32 in creation, 27th of 32 in suppression.
They finished 27 goals above what the chances were worth (15th of 32 in shooting).
45% of their goals came off the rush, 4th of 32 — a club built on the first shot, not the cycle.
The penalty kill 8th of 32 at 83.3%.
Where CHI ranks
Each bar is a percentile against all 32 clubs, with the league median on the tick. Metrics where less is better are flipped, so longer is always better.
Shots for and against
Special teams
| Goals | Chances | Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power play | 55 | 305 | 18.0% |
| Penalty kill | 55 | 329 | 83.3% |
Special-teams index 101.3 — power play plus penalty kill, the one number that says whether a club wins the nights the referee decides.
How the game unfolds
- Goals
- 68–63
- xG share
- 48.2%
- Goals
- 76–75
- xG share
- 50.0%
- Goals
- 72–65
- xG share
- 46.2%
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goals for | 68 | 76 | 72 |
| Goals against | 63 | 75 | 65 |
| xG for | 59.7 | 74.9 | 56.9 |
| xG against | 64.2 | 74.9 | 66.3 |
| Shots for | 654 | 738 | 603 |
| Shots against | 691 | 693 | 656 |
Share of goals is this club’s goals as a percentage of every goal scored in that period, so 50% is even. xG share is the same sum over chance quality, which says whether the result matched the play. Regulation only — overtime is three skaters a side and a different game.
How the goals came
| Goals | For | Share | Against | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Off the rush | 101 | 44.9% | 92 | 42.2% |
| Off the cycle | 96 | 42.7% | 88 | 40.4% |
| In a scramble | 24 | 10.7% | 31 | 14.2% |
| Attempts | For | Sh% | Against | Sv% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Off the rush | 533 | 18.9% | 546 | 83.2% |
| Off the cycle | 1391 | 6.9% | 1399 | 93.7% |
| In a scramble | 114 | 21.1% | 140 | 77.9% |
A rush is the first shot of a possession, taken inside 40 ft up the middle; the cycle is a shot after sustained pressure, or a first shot from distance or the wall; a scramble is a second attempt inside four seconds. League-wide they convert at about 17%, 8% and 23%. Shares are of goals scored in play — shootout winners are not shots.
Volume
| For | Against | |
|---|---|---|
| Shots | 2038 | 2085 |
| Expected goals | 198.0 | 212.6 |
| Scoring chances | 723 | — |
| High-danger chances | 318 | — |
With a lead, level, and from behind
| Score state | Share of play | GF–GA | GF% | GF% ex. EN | xGF% | SF% | Sh%ex. EN | Sv%ex. EN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leading | 33%1,841 min | 84–105 | 44.4%lg 52.5% | 40.7%lg 47.9% | 42.0%lg 48.0% | 41.5%lg 46.6% | 10.2%lg 10.4% | 89.6%lg 90.4% |
| Tied | 38%2,109 min | 96–83 | 53.6%lg 50.0% | 53.6%lg 50.0% | 48.9%lg 50.0% | 49.2%lg 50.0% | 9.9%lg 9.6% | 91.7%lg 90.4% |
| Trailing | 29%1,630 min | 94–75 | 55.6%lg 47.4% | 61.0%lg 52.1% | 50.3%lg 52.0% | 54.8%lg 53.4% | 11.3%lg 9.6% | 91.1%lg 89.6% |
Regulation only — overtime is three-on-three and always starts level, so pooling it here would contaminate every rate. The small figure under each percentage is the league in the same score state; CHI being above it is the claim, not the percentage itself. GF% ex. EN drops empty-net goals from both sides, and across the league it reverses the headline: clubs are outscored at even play while protecting a lead, and outscore while chasing. The empty net is what settles it.
2025-26 skaters · 31
| Player | GP | G | A | P | SOG | ixG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Felix Unger SörumRW | 72 | 17 | 49 | 66 | 116 | 13.33 |
| Justin RobidasC | 58 | 23 | 37 | 60 | 191 | 22.32 |
| Bradly NadeauLW | 52 | 27 | 29 | 56 | 154 | 19.34 |
| Ryan SuzukiC | 66 | 13 | 35 | 48 | 104 | 14.70 |
| Domenick FensoreD | 60 | 10 | 25 | 35 | 161 | 8.62 |
| Evan VierlingF | 70 | 16 | 19 | 35 | 100 | 12.54 |
| Noel GunlerRW | 71 | 15 | 20 | 35 | 120 | 11.79 |
| Skyler Brind’AmourF | 68 | 16 | 18 | 34 | 110 | 14.36 |
| Nikita PavlychevC | 69 | 14 | 14 | 28 | 115 | 13.37 |
| Gavin BayreutherD | 63 | 5 | 20 | 25 | 121 | 5.79 |
| Josiah SlavinLW | 69 | 6 | 19 | 25 | 71 | 9.23 |
| Viktor NeuchevRW | 64 | 10 | 15 | 25 | 103 | 12.15 |
| Juuso VälimäkiD | 27 | 7 | 16 | 23 | 47 | 2.44 |
| Ronan SeeleyD | 69 | 11 | 12 | 23 | 99 | 6.79 |
| Cal FooteD | 48 | 4 | 14 | 18 | 61 | 3.22 |
| Aleksi HeimosalmiD | 52 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 58 | 2.26 |
| Noah PhilpC | 29 | 8 | 9 | 17 | 43 | 4.95 |
| Dominik BadinkaD | 68 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 78 | 4.82 |
| Gleb TrikozovLW | 46 | 7 | 4 | 11 | 61 | 5.02 |
| Ivan RyabkinC | 31 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 38 | 4.22 |
| Joel NyströmD | 37 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 48 | 2.36 |
| Charles Alexis LegaultD | 24 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 34 | 1.34 |
| Givani SmithLW | 25 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 35 | 3.67 |
| Bryce MontgomeryD | 24 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 25 | 0.92 |
| David GagnonF | 18 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 0.92 |
| Blake BiondiC | 29 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 36 | 4.50 |
| Yanick TurcotteLW | 38 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 1.68 |
| Braden DoyleD | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.12 |
| Deni GoureC | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.09 |
| Ethan LeyhLW | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0.44 |
| Tyler WeissLW | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
2025-26 goaltending
| Goalie | GP | W | SV% | GAA | GSAx |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cayden Primeau | 39 | 21 | 91.6% | 2.41 | 16.7 |
| Amir Miftakhov | 28 | 12 | 88.8% | 3.25 | -4.6 |
| Nikita Quapp | 4 | 1 | 85.2% | 3.89 | -3.3 |
| Pyotr Kochetkov | 3 | 1 | 94.0% | 1.50 | 1.4 |
| Ruslan Khazheyev | 1 | 1 | 90.9% | 2.77 | 1.4 |
Last 10 games
| Date | Opp | Result | Goals | xG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-19 | @ TOR | L | 3–4 | 2.0–2.0 |
| 2026-06-18 | @ TOR | W | 4–3 | 1.7–3.4 |
| 2026-06-16 | @ TOR | L | 0–1 | 1.5–2.0 |
| 2026-06-14 | vs TOR | OTL | 4–5 | 3.3–3.7 |
| 2026-06-12 | vs TOR | L | 2–4 | 2.2–2.3 |
| 2026-06-08 | @ COL | W | 4–3 | 2.7–3.3 |
| 2026-06-07 | @ COL | W | 3–2 | 1.5–4.0 |
| 2026-06-05 | vs COL | L | 3–7 | 2.4–3.7 |
| 2026-06-03 | vs COL | W | 2–1 | 2.3–3.2 |
| 2026-06-02 | vs COL | L | 2–3 | 2.9–3.0 |