Tue, Feb 15, 2011·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Vancouver Canucks 4, Minnesota Wild 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vancouver Canucks win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 16 | 27 | 11 | 414 |
| MIN | 110 | 06 | 013 | 129 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:15VANManny MalhotraPPAssists: Sami Salo · Deflected, 0.05 xG1–0
- P1 17:02MINCal ClutterbuckPPAssists: Kyle Brodziak, Jared Spurgeon · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–1
- P2 12:49VANJannik HansenGWGAssists: Manny Malhotra · Backhand, 0.17 xG2–1
- P2 19:41VANMikael SamuelssonAssists: Ryan Kesler, Mason Raymond · Snap, 0.05 xG3–1
- P3 19:44VANRyan KeslerENAssists: Christian Ehrhoff · Wrist, 0.46 xG4–1
Penalties (7)
- P1 4:09MINMartin Havlat: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P1 6:11VANVictor Oreskovich: Charging2 min
- P1 15:10VANSami Salo: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P2 3:26VANDaniel Sedin: Tripping2 min
- P3 11:51VANAlexandre Burrows: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 11:51MINKyle Brodziak: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 19:03VANManny Malhotra: 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
- Press play, or drag along the timeline.
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestMalhotra – Torres – Hansen9:38
xG 0.51–0.16 (77%)attempts 7–5goals 1–0
- Samuelsson – Kesler – Raymond10:44
xG 0.30–0.32 (48%)attempts 11–8goals 1–0
- Tambellini – Glass – Oreskovich4:37
xG 0.00–0.04 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Burrows11:12
xG 0.04–0.63 (6%)attempts 4–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRome – Tanev10:09
xG 0.59–0.10 (86%)attempts 7–5goals 1–0
- Ehrhoff – Tanev2:47
xG 0.04–0.01 (75%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Salo – Rome4:44
xG 0.03–0.02 (59%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestBrunette – Miettinen – Koivu14:32
xG 0.61–0.00 (100%)attempts 14–2goals 0–0
- Havlat – Brodziak – Clutterbuck9:39
xG 0.17–0.15 (53%)attempts 9–6goals 0–1
- Madden – Havlat – Nystrom2:14
xG 0.02–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Cullen – Kobasew – Bouchard8:55
xG 0.18–0.26 (40%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchultz – Burns18:24
xG 0.91–0.28 (77%)attempts 21–7goals 0–0
- Zanon – Stoner15:58
xG 0.42–0.28 (60%)attempts 13–10goals 0–1
- Barker – Spurgeon10:34
xG 0.10–0.47 (17%)attempts 5–8goals 0–1
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it VAN. 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, Vancouver Canucks win this game 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).