Wed, Nov 17, 2010·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Anaheim Ducks 1, Minnesota Wild 2 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 60% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 04 | 17 | 016 | 01 | 128 |
| MIN | 011 | 110 | 02 | 14 | 227 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 4:56ANATeemu SelannePPAssists: Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf · Wrist, 0.18 xG1–0
- P2 6:34MINMartin HavlatUnassisted · Backhand, 0.02 xG1–1
- OT 3:36MINAntti MiettinenGWGAssists: Marco Scandella · Wrist, 0.17 xG1–2
Penalties (4)
- P1 14:03ANALuca Sbisa: Holding2 min
- P2 4:02MINMarek Zidlicky: Interference2 min · PPG
- P2 13:24ANAGeorge Parros: Fighting5 min
- P2 13:24MINBrad Staubitz: Fighting5 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 Koivu
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestSelanne – Koivu – Blake13:19
xG 0.59–0.25 (70%)attempts 10–7goals 0–0
- Green – Parros – Carter5:44
xG 0.27–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Marchant – Bonino – Palmieri9:58
xG 0.22–0.26 (46%)attempts 7–11goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Ryan16:52
xG 0.60–0.76 (44%)attempts 12–19goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestLydman – Visnovsky19:03
xG 1.28–0.42 (76%)attempts 22–8goals 0–0
- Brookbank – Sbisa16:08
xG 0.58–0.33 (64%)attempts 15–15goals 0–1
- Mara – Fowler17:52
xG 0.49–0.75 (40%)attempts 9–22goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestCullen – Clutterbuck – Wellman11:32
xG 0.65–0.37 (63%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Brodziak – Earl – Staubitz7:10
xG 0.04–0.20 (18%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
- Brunette – Miettinen – Koivu15:26
xG 0.53–0.71 (43%)attempts 14–12goals 0–0
- Madden – Havlat – Nystrom16:08
xG 0.19–0.61 (24%)attempts 12–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Zanon – Zidlicky19:47
xG 0.78–0.74 (51%)attempts 20–16goals 0–0
- Barker – Falk14:15
xG 0.23–0.55 (29%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
- Schultz – Scandella17:52
xG 0.30–0.93 (24%)attempts 10–17goals 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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it ANA. 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 60% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).