Sat, Oct 30, 2010·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Chicago Blackhawks 3, Minnesota Wild 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 82% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 011 | 112 | 29 | 332 |
| MIN | 09 | 07 | 110 | 126 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 19:29CHITroy BrouwerAssists: Duncan Keith, Patrick Kane · Wrist, 0.35 xG1–0
- P3 3:26CHIDuncan KeithGWGAssists: Troy Brouwer, Patrick Kane · Wrap-around, 0.04 xG2–0
- P3 14:06MINMarek ZidlickyAssists: Mikko Koivu, Andrew Brunette · Wrist, 0.08 xG2–1
- P3 19:24CHIJake DowellENUnassisted · Wrist, 0.53 xG3–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 8:46CHINick Boynton: Interference2 min
- P2 5:42MINBrent Burns: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:57MINCasey Wellman: Hooking2 min
- P3 8:34CHIFernando Pisani: Slashing2 min
- P3 11:19CHIBrent Seabrook: Holding2 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 20:00Cullen won the faceoff against Sharp
- 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.
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestBrouwer – Toews – Kane5:30
xG 0.94–0.01 (99%)attempts 14–5goals 2–0
- Pisani – Potulny – Skille6:31
xG 0.17–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
- Kopecky – Sharp – Stalberg11:51
xG 0.30–0.25 (55%)attempts 13–10goals 0–0
- Toews – Kane – Smith6:28
xG 0.09–0.05 (66%)attempts 4–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestKeith – Seabrook18:21
xG 0.92–0.23 (80%)attempts 21–14goals 2–0
- Boynton – Hendry10:39
xG 0.49–0.05 (90%)attempts 11–10goals 0–0
- Cullimore – Keith2:20
xG 0.07–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- Brodziak – Staubitz – Gillies3:57
xG 0.01–0.06 (15%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Madden – Nystrom – Clutterbuck8:10
xG 0.05–0.17 (24%)attempts 4–9goals 0–0
- Brunette – Koivu – Kobasew10:58
xG 0.17–0.33 (34%)attempts 9–10goals 0–1
- Cullen – Havlat – Wellman9:10
xG 0.08–0.41 (16%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Schultz – Burns13:42
xG 0.30–0.46 (39%)attempts 10–12goals 0–1
- Stoner – Falk9:54
xG 0.07–0.24 (23%)attempts 6–11goals 0–0
- Zanon – Zidlicky16:01
xG 0.33–0.87 (28%)attempts 21–20goals 1–1
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it CHI. 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, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 82% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).