Sat, Jan 1, 2011·St. Pete Times Forum, Tampa
New York Rangers 1, Tampa Bay Lightning 2 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, New York Rangers win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NYR | 07 | 013 | 115 | 00 | 135 |
| TBL | 110 | 015 | 07 | 11 | 233 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 13:03TBLDana TyrellAssists: Nate Thompson · Backhand, 0.13 xG0–1
- P3 19:14NYRMarian GaborikAssists: Dan Girardi · Wrist, 0.14 xG1–1
- OT 0:19TBLNate ThompsonGWGAssists: Dana Tyrell, Mike Lundin · Wrist, 0.18 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 8:40TBLDominic Moore: Interference2 min
- P2 1:58TBLMatt Smaby: Hooking2 min
- P2 5:38NYRDale Weise: Hooking2 min
- P2 16:26NYRBrandon Dubinsky: Roughing2 min
- P3 1:14NYRArtem Anisimov: Holding2 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 20:00Thompson won the faceoff against Stepan
- 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.
New York Rangers
Forward lines
- bestFrolov – Anisimov – Zuccarello8:46
xG 0.24–0.10 (71%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Fedotenko – Boyle – Prust12:01
xG 0.46–0.38 (55%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
- Drury – Avery – Weise5:07
xG 0.09–0.06 (62%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Gaborik – Dubinsky – Stepan14:14
xG 0.47–0.61 (44%)attempts 18–11goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestStaal – Girardi18:02
xG 0.74–0.36 (67%)attempts 21–16goals 0–0
- Rozsival – Eminger14:57
xG 0.40–0.25 (61%)attempts 17–7goals 0–0
- Sauer – Gilroy10:28
xG 0.24–0.24 (50%)attempts 7–7goals 0–1
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestMoore – Ritola – Purcell5:48
xG 0.34–0.10 (77%)attempts 10–1goals 0–0
- Lecavalier – Gagne – Bergenheim8:54
xG 0.10–0.17 (35%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
- St. Louis – Malone – Stamkos13:03
xG 0.56–0.64 (47%)attempts 14–15goals 0–0
- Hall – Thompson – Tyrell11:23
xG 0.25–0.35 (42%)attempts 4–13goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestKubina – Smaby3:23
xG 0.33–0.14 (71%)attempts 6–2goals 0–0
- Ohlund – Lundin12:25
xG 0.27–0.25 (52%)attempts 5–13goals 1–0
- Ohlund – Clark3:03
xG 0.04–0.09 (29%)attempts 2–4goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it NYR. 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, New York Rangers win this game 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − NYR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).