Tue, Jan 4, 2011·Verizon Center, Washington
Tampa Bay Lightning 1, Washington Capitals 0 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 58% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 012 | 013 | 08 | 15 | 138 |
| WSH | 05 | 021 | 08 | 00 | 034 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- OT 2:54TBLMartin St. LouisGWGAssists: Vincent Lecavalier, Pavel Kubina · Snap, 0.32 xG1–0
Penalties (8)
- P1 14:10TBLVincent Lecavalier: Interference2 min
- P1 18:15WSHTom Poti: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P2 2:33TBLSteven Stamkos: Hooking2 min
- P2 9:35WSHMatt Hendricks: Fighting5 min
- P2 9:35TBLSteve Downie: Fighting5 min
- P2 11:38TBLNate Thompson: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P2 16:00WSHAlexander Semin: Tripping2 min
- P3 7:06WSHMike Green: 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 20:00Lecavalier won the faceoff against Perreault
- 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.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestMalone – Purcell – Stamkos3:49
xG 0.37–0.02 (94%)attempts 9–2goals 0–0
- Lecavalier – Gagne – Bergenheim7:01
xG 0.24–0.06 (79%)attempts 11–5goals 0–0
- St. Louis – Malone – Stamkos5:04
xG 0.20–0.06 (76%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
- Moore – Downie – Purcell4:31
xG 0.09–0.06 (60%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestClark – Hedman8:14
xG 0.45–0.28 (62%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
- Clark – Smaby2:28
xG 0.11–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Kubina – Smaby4:47
xG 0.12–0.03 (79%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
Washington Capitals
Forward lines
- bestKnuble – Ovechkin – Backstrom13:07
xG 0.72–0.28 (72%)attempts 18–11goals 0–0
- Laich – Semin – Johansson4:23
xG 0.17–0.03 (87%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
- Chimera – Fehr – Perreault2:24
xG 0.05–0.03 (63%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Chimera – Fehr – Johansson6:09
xG 0.13–0.22 (36%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestPoti – Schultz16:17
xG 0.58–0.33 (64%)attempts 18–14goals 0–0
- Green – Alzner2:49
xG 0.00–0.16 (0%)attempts 1–5goals 0–0
- Hannan – Green12:19
xG 0.36–0.53 (41%)attempts 10–14goals 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.
WSH's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line WSH is favoured, below it TBL. 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 58% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (WSH − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).