Fri, Nov 26, 2010·Honda Center, Anaheim
Chicago Blackhawks 4, Anaheim Ducks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 63% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 013 | 110 | 311 | 434 |
| ANA | 16 | 09 | 012 | 127 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 16:49ANADan SextonPPAssists: Saku Koivu, Cam Fowler · Deflected, 0.13 xG0–1
- P2 7:40CHIDuncan KeithSHAssists: Patrick Sharp · Slap, 0.03 xG1–1
- P3 2:55CHIPatrick SharpGWGUnassisted · Wrist, 0.08 xG2–1
- P3 5:57CHINiklas HjalmarssonAssists: Dave Bolland, Jonathan Toews · Slap, 0.02 xG3–1
- P3 9:40CHITroy BrouwerAssists: Jake Dowell, Jack Skille · Slap, 0.11 xG4–1
Penalties (9)
- P1 1:28ANAAndy Sutton: Roughing2 min
- P1 16:08CHIFernando Pisani: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 7:07CHIMarian Hossa: Tripping2 min
- P2 12:28CHIJack Skille: Tripping2 min
- P2 19:02CHINick Boynton: Roughing2 min
- P2 19:02CHINick Boynton: Roughing2 min
- P2 19:02ANAAndy Sutton: Roughing2 min
- P3 6:33CHIDuncan Keith: Interference2 min
- P3 13:58ANAAaron Voros: Roughing2 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 20:00Getzlaf won the faceoff against Toews
- 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
- bestHossa – Kopecky – Sharp9:22
xG 0.35–0.17 (67%)attempts 8–5goals 1–0
- Dowell – Brouwer – Skille7:17
xG 0.32–0.20 (62%)attempts 10–2goals 1–0
- Pisani – Bolland – Bickell6:09
xG 0.17–0.06 (73%)attempts 6–2goals 0–0
- Hossa – Bolland – Bickell2:22
xG 0.09–0.16 (38%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestKeith – Seabrook18:42
xG 0.65–0.48 (58%)attempts 17–14goals 1–0
- Cullimore – Boynton9:40
xG 0.18–0.28 (39%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
- Campbell – Hjalmarsson13:06
xG 0.57–0.80 (41%)attempts 16–8goals 1–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestParros – Voros – Chipchura6:37
xG 0.36–0.11 (76%)attempts 8–2goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Ryan16:04
xG 0.89–0.65 (58%)attempts 13–14goals 0–0
- Marchant – Bonino – McMillan8:55
xG 0.17–0.07 (71%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
- Koivu – Blake – Sexton11:41
xG 0.31–0.43 (42%)attempts 7–17goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestMara – Sbisa11:25
xG 0.55–0.14 (79%)attempts 12–9goals 0–0
- Sutton – Sbisa2:33
xG 0.17–0.08 (67%)attempts 5–1goals 0–1
- Lydman – Mara2:25
xG 0.03–0.06 (32%)attempts 2–1goals 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 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 63% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).