Mon, Dec 20, 2010·TD Garden, Boston
Anaheim Ducks 3, Boston Bruins 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Boston Bruins win this game 54% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 17 | 28 | 010 | 325 |
| BOS | 09 | 018 | 018 | 045 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:57ANABrandon McMillanGWGAssists: Luca Sbisa, Teemu Selanne · Snap, 0.16 xG1–0
- P2 4:45ANALubomir VisnovskyAssists: Teemu Selanne, Saku Koivu · Slap, 0.19 xG2–0
- P2 15:05ANACorey PerrySHAssists: Brandon McMillan, Andy Sutton · Snap, 0.45 xG3–0
Penalties (5)
- P1 1:08BOSDavid Krejci: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P2 1:52BOSGregory Campbell: Fighting5 min
- P2 1:52ANAKyle Chipchura: Fighting5 min
- P2 9:02ANATeemu Selanne: Boarding2 min
- P2 13:34ANARyan Getzlaf: Tripping2 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 Bergeron
- 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
- Marchant – Lupul – Chipchura3:43
xG 0.11–0.17 (38%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
- Marchant – Lupul – Bonino5:40
xG 0.06–0.13 (31%)attempts 3–9goals 0–0
- Blake – Parros – Chipchura3:20
xG 0.10–0.26 (27%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
- Selanne – Koivu – McMillan12:59
xG 0.58–0.79 (42%)attempts 13–23goals 2–0
Defence pairs
- bestLydman – Visnovsky16:43
xG 0.61–0.45 (58%)attempts 16–22goals 1–0
- Visnovsky – Fowler2:15
xG 0.08–0.01 (87%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Sutton – Sbisa15:29
xG 0.73–0.98 (43%)attempts 10–28goals 1–0
Boston Bruins
Forward lines
- bestRecchi – Bergeron – Wheeler8:36
xG 0.56–0.13 (81%)attempts 15–4goals 0–0
- Recchi – Bergeron – Seguin5:14
xG 0.45–0.07 (87%)attempts 12–4goals 0–0
- Savard – Ryder – Seguin6:59
xG 0.19–0.02 (90%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Savard – Ryder – Horton5:12
xG 0.32–0.21 (60%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestChara – Boychuk17:45
xG 0.91–0.44 (68%)attempts 24–9goals 0–0
- Ference – Kampfer6:48
xG 0.57–0.13 (81%)attempts 13–4goals 0–0
- Ference – Seidenberg2:17
xG 0.31–0.02 (93%)attempts 5–2goals 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.
BOS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line BOS 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, Boston Bruins win this game 54% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BOS − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).