Mon, Oct 11, 2010·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
Florida Panthers 1, Vancouver Canucks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Florida Panthers win this game 71% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLA | 013 | 110 | 019 | 142 |
| VAN | 112 | 011 | 112 | 235 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 12:39VANDaniel SedinAssists: Mikael Samuelsson, Henrik Sedin · Wrist, 0.10 xG0–1
- P2 19:22FLARostislav OleszAssists: Mike Santorelli, Cory Stillman · Deflected, 0.02 xG1–1
- P3 14:52VANDaniel SedinGWGAssists: Henrik Sedin, Mikael Samuelsson · Wrist, 0.15 xG1–2
Penalties (3)
- P1 18:33VANAndrew Alberts: Hooking2 min
- P2 1:24VANMikael Samuelsson: Slashing2 min
- P2 15:05VANHenrik Sedin: Hooking2 min
Replay
Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Reasoner won the faceoff against Sedin
- Goal
- Shot
- Miss
- Block
- Hit
- Takeaway
- Giveaway
- Faceoff
- Penalty
The numbers
Team totals, side by side.
Line combinations that worked
Model-basedEach team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.
Florida Panthers
Forward lines
- bestBernier – Booth – Matthias3:07
xG 0.57–0.00 (100%)attempts 8–0goals 0–0
- Weiss – Higgins – Frolik9:58
xG 0.35–0.15 (70%)attempts 9–6goals 0–0
- Higgins – Olesz – Santorelli4:04
xG 0.08–0.02 (78%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Weiss – Booth – Frolik5:39
xG 0.26–0.23 (54%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMcCabe – Kulikov12:12
xG 0.58–0.27 (68%)attempts 19–13goals 1–1
- McCabe – Wideman2:11
xG 0.26–0.12 (69%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Allen – Wideman13:06
xG 0.75–0.65 (53%)attempts 17–12goals 0–0
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestSamuelsson – Sedin – Sedin16:15
xG 0.81–0.49 (63%)attempts 24–11goals 2–1
- Tambellini – Desbiens – Glass3:39
xG 0.15–0.00 (98%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
- Kesler – Hansen – Raymond14:59
xG 0.50–0.50 (50%)attempts 18–20goals 0–0
- Schaefer – Malhotra – Torres9:42
xG 0.07–0.50 (13%)attempts 4–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEhrhoff – Edler22:35
xG 0.78–0.33 (70%)attempts 21–20goals 1–1
- Alberts – Ballard11:52
xG 0.27–0.40 (40%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
- Hamhuis – Bieksa15:44
xG 0.58–1.30 (31%)attempts 22–26goals 1–0
How the game flowed
Model-basedChance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.
Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.
Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute
Win probability
Model-basedHow each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN is favoured, below it FLA. Dots are goals.
Did the better team win?
Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.
Based on shot quality alone, Florida Panthers win this game 71% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − FLA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).