Thu, Dec 2, 2010·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Atlanta Thrashers 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 71% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATL | 18 | 19 | 05 | 222 |
| PIT | 111 | 29 | 08 | 328 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:21ATLBryan LittleAssists: Anthony Stewart, Johnny Oduya · Wrist, 0.21 xG1–0
- P1 7:32PITSidney CrosbyAssists: Chris Kunitz, Deryk Engelland · Wrist, 0.06 xG1–1
- P2 4:24PITSidney CrosbyAssists: Arron Asham · Backhand, 0.14 xG1–2
- P2 10:18PITSidney CrosbyGWGAssists: Brooks Orpik, Kris Letang · Tip-in, 0.10 xG1–3
- P2 18:34ATLNik AntropovAssists: Niclas Bergfors · Snap, 0.13 xG2–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 1:51ATLChris Thorburn: Fighting5 min
- P1 1:51PITArron Asham: Fighting5 min
- P1 4:54PITEvgeni Malkin: High sticking2 min
- P1 13:06ATLAndrew Ladd: Tripping2 min
- P2 15:18PITKris Letang: Holding2 min
- P2 16:16ATLToby Enstrom: Hooking2 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 20:00Peverley won the faceoff against Crosby
- 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.
Atlanta Thrashers
Forward lines
- Boulton – Thorburn – Slater6:10
xG 0.07–0.16 (29%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Antropov – Eager – Burmistrov10:40
xG 0.10–0.27 (26%)attempts 7–6goals 0–0
- Ladd – Peverley – Bergfors13:59
xG 0.30–0.99 (23%)attempts 9–17goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Sopel – Hainsey8:52
xG 0.27–0.55 (33%)attempts 7–10goals 0–1
- Enstrom – Byfuglien13:51
xG 0.15–0.48 (24%)attempts 11–11goals 0–1
- Oduya – Bogosian11:59
xG 0.07–0.96 (7%)attempts 9–11goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestDupuis – Kunitz – Crosby13:16
xG 0.71–0.10 (87%)attempts 12–6goals 2–0
- Cooke – Talbot – Malkin10:17
xG 0.42–0.07 (85%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- Kennedy – Conner – Letestu9:45
xG 0.51–0.31 (62%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Asham – Adams – Rupp6:55
xG 0.03–0.10 (25%)attempts 2–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestOrpik – Letang16:24
xG 1.21–0.56 (68%)attempts 20–13goals 2–1
- Martin – Michalek17:10
xG 0.74–0.13 (85%)attempts 13–10goals 1–0
- Engelland – Goligoski12:14
xG 0.35–0.13 (73%)attempts 7–10goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it ATL. 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 71% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − ATL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).