Sat, Feb 5, 2011·Jobing.com Arena, Glendale
Minnesota Wild 0, Phoenix Coyotes 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Phoenix Coyotes win this game 65% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 010 | 07 | 08 | 025 |
| PHX | 016 | 015 | 110 | 141 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 2:20PHXTaylor PyattGWGAssists: Sami Lepisto, Eric Belanger · Wrist, 0.01 xG0–1
Penalties (7)
- P1 11:35MINChuck Kobasew: Tripping2 min
- P1 18:30MINCam Barker: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P1 19:36PHXMartin Hanzal: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P2 1:30MINAntti Miettinen: Hooking2 min
- P2 4:23PHXTaylor Pyatt: Hooking2 min
- P2 18:35PHXTaylor Pyatt: Interference2 min
- P3 16:51PHXSami Lepisto: 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 20:00Hanzal won the faceoff against Koivu
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestNystrom – Staubitz – Almond5:37
xG 0.10–0.05 (67%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Havlat – Bouchard – Brodziak9:30
xG 0.31–0.27 (53%)attempts 6–11goals 0–1
- Madden – Kobasew – Clutterbuck8:22
xG 0.13–0.12 (53%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
- Brunette – Miettinen – Koivu10:22
xG 0.56–0.60 (48%)attempts 5–20goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchultz – Burns14:43
xG 1.04–0.55 (65%)attempts 14–22goals 0–0
- Zanon – Stoner16:04
xG 0.09–0.47 (16%)attempts 11–21goals 0–0
- Barker – Falk10:26
xG 0.10–0.67 (13%)attempts 2–12goals 0–1
Phoenix Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestWhitney – Vrbata – Hanzal12:22
xG 0.85–0.48 (64%)attempts 22–4goals 0–0
- Doan – Upshall – Korpikoski3:15
xG 0.20–0.11 (65%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Bissonnette – Korpikoski – Ebbett4:04
xG 0.09–0.05 (64%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Doan – Upshall – Turris6:31
xG 0.17–0.21 (46%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMorris – Yandle13:15
xG 0.72–0.46 (61%)attempts 28–7goals 0–0
- Rozsival – Ekman-Larsson12:45
xG 0.46–0.22 (68%)attempts 15–11goals 0–0
- Rozsival – Lepisto2:43
xG 0.18–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 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.
PHX's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHX is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Phoenix Coyotes win this game 65% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHX − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).