Fri, Nov 5, 2010·Honda Center, Anaheim
Pittsburgh Penguins 2, Anaheim Ducks 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 05 | 115 | 112 | 232 |
| ANA | 07 | 38 | 04 | 319 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:35ANABobby RyanAssists: Lubomir Visnovsky, Ryan Carter · Wrist, 0.04 xG0–1
- P2 12:22ANARyan GetzlafAssists: Corey Perry, Bobby Ryan · Wrist, 0.10 xG0–2
- P2 14:26ANASaku KoivuGWGAssists: Lubomir Visnovsky, Teemu Selanne · Tip-in, 0.33 xG0–3
- P2 17:27PITSidney CrosbyPPAssists: Kris Letang, Alex Goligoski · Deflected, 0.12 xG1–3
- P3 3:48PITSidney CrosbyAssists: Pascal Dupuis, Kris Letang · Backhand, 0.14 xG2–3
Penalties (8)
- P1 1:42PITDeryk Engelland: Fighting5 min
- P1 1:42ANAGeorge Parros: Fighting5 min
- P1 6:52PITZbynek Michalek: Boarding2 min
- P1 15:05ANABobby Ryan: Roughing2 min
- P2 0:55ANANick Bonino: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P2 16:06ANATeemu Selanne: Holding2 min · PPG
- P3 9:07ANATeemu Selanne: Hooking2 min
- P3 9:51PITChris Kunitz: Cross checking2 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 20:00Crosby won the faceoff against Getzlaf
- 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
- bestAdams – Comrie – Talbot6:13
xG 0.07–0.02 (80%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Asham – Rupp – Letestu7:02
xG 0.19–0.16 (54%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Cooke – Malkin – Kennedy5:55
xG 0.38–0.38 (50%)attempts 7–6goals 0–1
- Kunitz – Malkin – Crosby2:05
xG 0.14–0.18 (45%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestOrpik – Michalek12:53
xG 0.62–0.53 (54%)attempts 14–11goals 0–1
- Michalek – Goligoski2:01
xG 0.00–0.02 (16%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Martin – Letang13:57
xG 0.53–0.61 (46%)attempts 12–9goals 1–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestSelanne – Koivu – Blake10:16
xG 0.59–0.37 (62%)attempts 11–13goals 1–0
- Marchant – Bonino – Palmieri7:41
xG 0.09–0.12 (45%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
- Green – Parros – Carter5:32
xG 0.24–0.27 (47%)attempts 1–8goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Ryan14:28
xG 0.65–0.81 (45%)attempts 14–12goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestLydman – Visnovsky15:43
xG 0.84–0.76 (53%)attempts 15–13goals 2–1
- Lilja – Brookbank8:38
xG 0.16–0.12 (58%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Visnovsky – Fowler2:13
xG 0.03–0.12 (22%)attempts 1–3goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA 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 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).