Fri, Dec 3, 2010·Honda Center, Anaheim
Detroit Red Wings 4, Anaheim Ducks 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Detroit Red Wings win this game 74% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DET | 18 | 28 | 113 | 429 |
| ANA | 015 | 011 | 015 | 041 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 1:09DETJohan FranzenGWGAssists: Valtteri Filppula · Wrist, 0.04 xG1–0
- P2 14:02DETTomas HolmstromAssists: Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk · Wrist, 0.32 xG2–0
- P2 18:26DETDaniel ClearyAssists: Brian Rafalski · Deflected, 0.11 xG3–0
- P3 19:29DETValtteri FilppulaAssists: Jonathan Ericsson, Johan Franzen · Wrist, 0.10 xG4–0
Penalties (4)
- P1 13:45DETJonathan Ericsson: Interference2 min
- P1 15:33DETPavel Datsyuk: High sticking2 min
- P3 1:25DETTodd Bertuzzi: Slashing2 min
- P3 5:45ANAJason Blake: 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 Datsyuk
- 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.
Detroit Red Wings
Forward lines
- bestHolmstrom – Datsyuk – Zetterberg6:52
xG 0.68–0.19 (78%)attempts 6–5goals 1–0
- Hudler – Miller – Abdelkader5:39
xG 0.45–0.03 (93%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Holmstrom – Eaves – Helm5:01
xG 0.55–0.39 (59%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Bertuzzi – Filppula – Franzen13:39
xG 0.61–0.45 (57%)attempts 10–16goals 2–0
Defence pairs
- bestSalei – Kronwall14:17
xG 0.89–0.17 (84%)attempts 9–6goals 0–0
- Lidstrom – Stuart15:01
xG 0.97–0.69 (59%)attempts 15–16goals 1–0
- Rafalski – Ericsson17:16
xG 1.11–1.07 (51%)attempts 14–21goals 3–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestBeleskey – Bonino – McMillan7:50
xG 0.45–0.30 (60%)attempts 10–5goals 0–1
- Getzlaf – Perry – Ryan13:29
xG 0.42–0.27 (60%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Beleskey2:58
xG 0.14–0.41 (25%)attempts 5–3goals 0–1
- Marchant – Parros – Chipchura8:13
xG 0.57–0.99 (37%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLydman – Visnovsky17:59
xG 0.96–0.81 (54%)attempts 17–10goals 0–2
- Sutton – Sbisa11:35
xG 0.53–0.86 (38%)attempts 10–10goals 0–2
- Mara – Fowler15:45
xG 0.53–1.12 (32%)attempts 16–15goals 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 DET. 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, Detroit Red Wings win this game 74% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − DET), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).