Sat, Oct 23, 2010·Scottrade Center, St. Louis
Pittsburgh Penguins 0, St. Louis Blues 1 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 03 | 019 | 09 | 00 | 031 |
| STL | 07 | 07 | 08 | 12 | 124 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- OT 0:50STLErik JohnsonGWGAssists: T.J. Oshie, David Backes · Snap, 0.10 xG0–1
Penalties (9)
- P1 3:59PITPascal Dupuis: Holding2 min
- P1 11:19PITBrooks Orpik: Interference2 min
- P2 3:24STLB.J. Crombeen: Fighting5 min
- P2 3:24PITCraig Adams: Fighting5 min
- P2 9:55STLAndy McDonald: Holding2 min
- P2 14:36STLAlexander Steen: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:40STLDavid Perron: Interference2 min
- P3 4:01PITMark Letestu: Hooking2 min
- P3 9:32STLT.J. Oshie: High sticking2 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 20:00Backes won the faceoff against Crosby
- 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestCooke – Talbot – Kennedy4:35
xG 0.47–0.12 (80%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Malkin – Crosby2:29
xG 0.03–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Dupuis – Kunitz – Crosby5:05
xG 0.10–0.11 (49%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Comrie – Malkin – Letestu5:01
xG 0.02–0.26 (8%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestGoligoski – Letang2:22
xG 0.46–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Engelland – Goligoski9:50
xG 0.55–0.11 (83%)attempts 12–4goals 0–0
- Martin – Goligoski2:44
xG 0.34–0.13 (73%)attempts 7–1goals 0–0
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestMcClement – Steen – D'Agostini8:45
xG 0.29–0.02 (93%)attempts 8–2goals 0–0
- Backes – Oshie – Perron9:38
xG 0.82–0.60 (58%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
- McDonald – Boyes – Berglund9:44
xG 0.21–0.21 (50%)attempts 4–6goals 0–0
- Winchester – Crombeen – Sobotka3:56
xG 0.09–0.29 (24%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBrewer – Johnson4:43
xG 0.47–0.03 (94%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
- Jackman – Pietrangelo12:40
xG 0.35–0.05 (88%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- Colaiacovo – Johnson9:03
xG 0.25–0.25 (50%)attempts 5–6goals 0–0
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.
STL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line STL is favoured, below it PIT. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (STL − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).