Sun, Jan 2, 2011·Honda Center, Anaheim
Chicago Blackhawks 1, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 78% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 110 | 011 | 019 | 140 |
| ANA | 19 | 17 | 02 | 218 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 10:32ANAAndreas LiljaAssists: Joffrey Lupul, Brandon McMillan · Slap, 0.08 xG0–1
- P1 18:08CHIBryan BickellAssists: Brian Campbell, Dave Bolland · Wrist, 0.26 xG1–1
- P2 1:46ANACorey PerryGWGAssists: Matt Beleskey, Toni Lydman · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–2
Penalties (6)
- P1 12:31CHIDave Bolland: Holding2 min
- P1 16:00ANANick Bonino: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P2 6:39CHIPatrick Sharp: Holding2 min
- P2 13:50CHITomas Kopecky: Interference2 min
- P2 19:39ANAAndreas Lilja: Cross checking2 min
- P3 4:03CHIPatrick Kane: Penalty shot tripping on breakaway0 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 20:00Bolland won the faceoff against Marchant
- 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 – Bickell7:40
xG 0.41–0.27 (60%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
- Johnson – Skille – Stalberg2:34
xG 0.13–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Sharp – Brouwer – Kane7:10
xG 0.37–0.27 (58%)attempts 8–5goals 0–1
- Dowell – Skille – Stalberg5:02
xG 0.03–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCampbell – Keith4:24
xG 1.00–0.00 (100%)attempts 16–0goals 1–0
- Keith – Seabrook16:41
xG 0.58–0.28 (67%)attempts 20–11goals 0–1
- Campbell – Hjalmarsson14:20
xG 0.65–0.38 (63%)attempts 12–7goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestParros – Chipchura – Bonino2:24
xG 0.27–0.03 (89%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Marchant – Parros – Bonino2:37
xG 0.00–0.10 (0%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Selanne – Koivu – McMillan10:39
xG 0.14–0.41 (25%)attempts 3–15goals 0–0
- Marchant – Lupul – Chipchura6:20
xG 0.05–0.58 (8%)attempts 1–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Lydman – Visnovsky15:23
xG 0.39–0.68 (36%)attempts 8–16goals 1–0
- Lilja – Fowler15:50
xG 0.55–1.19 (32%)attempts 13–23goals 1–0
- Sutton – Sbisa12:25
xG 0.13–0.82 (13%)attempts 4–16goals 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 78% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).