Wed, Nov 3, 2010·Honda Center, Anaheim
Tampa Bay Lightning 2, Anaheim Ducks 3 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 53% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 02 | 115 | 117 | 00 | 234 |
| ANA | 19 | 010 | 110 | 11 | 330 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 12:22ANATeemu SelannePPAssists: Corey Perry, Lubomir Visnovsky · Wrist, 0.05 xG0–1
- P2 2:38TBLBlair JonesAssists: Ryan Malone, Teddy Purcell · Slap, 0.07 xG1–1
- P3 0:21TBLSteven StamkosPPAssists: Martin St. Louis, Vincent Lecavalier · Tip-in, 0.13 xG2–1
- P3 15:40ANAKyle PalmieriAssists: Bobby Ryan, Lubomir Visnovsky · Wrist, 0.09 xG2–2
- OT 2:53ANARyan GetzlafGWGAssists: Teemu Selanne, Toni Lydman · Slap, 0.16 xG2–3
Penalties (8)
- P1 3:41ANAJosh Green: High sticking double minor4 min
- P1 7:05TBLSteve Downie: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P1 11:23TBLRandy Jones: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P1 13:26TBLMattias Ohlund: Tripping2 min
- P2 7:27TBLMattias Ohlund: Slashing2 min
- P2 16:54ANARyan Getzlaf: Slashing2 min
- P2 19:01ANABobby Ryan: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P3 1:35TBLRyan Malone: Tripping2 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 20:00Koivu won the faceoff against Thompson
- 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.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestMalone – Jones – Purcell5:01
xG 0.45–0.02 (96%)attempts 10–1goals 1–0
- Hall – Thompson – Tyrell7:34
xG 0.30–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–0goals 0–0
- St. Louis – Lecavalier – Stamkos3:02
xG 0.28–0.05 (84%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Lecavalier – Bergenheim – Purcell2:49
xG 0.01–0.05 (18%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestOhlund – Jones6:22
xG 0.57–0.32 (64%)attempts 11–4goals 0–1
- Clark – Hedman14:29
xG 0.46–0.33 (58%)attempts 11–18goals 1–0
- Ohlund – Clark2:34
xG 0.08–0.02 (81%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestSelanne – Koivu – Blake10:36
xG 0.41–0.16 (72%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
- Koivu – Blake – Ryan2:24
xG 0.13–0.09 (58%)attempts 7–1goals 0–0
- Green – Parros – Carter5:36
xG 0.00–0.16 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 0–0
- Marchant – Bonino – Palmieri5:41
xG 0.13–0.58 (19%)attempts 3–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestLydman – Visnovsky14:32
xG 0.90–0.21 (81%)attempts 25–8goals 0–0
- Mara – Fowler15:57
xG 0.36–0.81 (31%)attempts 6–19goals 0–0
- Lilja – Brookbank8:34
xG 0.06–0.55 (9%)attempts 3–12goals 0–1
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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it TBL. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 53% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).