Thu, Mar 3, 2011·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
Nashville Predators 3, Vancouver Canucks 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 85% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSH | 08 | 09 | 312 | 329 |
| VAN | 011 | 06 | 012 | 029 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 1:59NSHBlake GeoffrionGWGAssists: Jordin Tootoo, Kevin Klein · Wrist, 0.29 xG1–0
- P3 17:39NSHPatric HornqvistUnassisted · Wrist, 0.27 xG2–0
- P3 19:25NSHDavid LegwandENAssists: Martin Erat, Joel Ward · Wrist, 0.68 xG3–0
Penalties (4)
- P1 4:20NSHShane O'Brien: High sticking2 min
- P2 3:23VANJannik Hansen: Interference2 min
- P3 2:48NSHPatric Hornqvist: Tripping2 min
- P3 5:39VANKeith Ballard: Delaying game puck over glass2 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 20:00Malhotra won the faceoff against Fisher
- 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.
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestFisher – Erat – Ward9:31
xG 0.84–0.07 (92%)attempts 13–4goals 0–0
- Fisher – Kostitsyn – Hornqvist5:43
xG 0.22–0.02 (90%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
- Legwand – Erat – Ward4:19
xG 0.32–0.16 (67%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Smithson – Tootoo – Spaling11:20
xG 0.49–0.45 (52%)attempts 11–17goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Weber22:39
xG 1.36–0.48 (74%)attempts 22–16goals 1–0
- Klein – Blum12:20
xG 0.52–0.35 (60%)attempts 10–15goals 1–0
- O'Brien – Franson9:27
xG 0.42–0.33 (56%)attempts 6–11goals 0–0
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestBurrows – Kesler – Raymond3:11
xG 0.29–0.04 (87%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Burrows10:36
xG 0.31–0.15 (67%)attempts 12–6goals 0–0
- Malhotra – Torres – Hansen10:35
xG 0.13–0.18 (42%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Samuelsson – Sedin – Sedin3:50
xG 0.14–0.56 (20%)attempts 4–5goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Salo – Rome3:48
xG 0.12–0.12 (49%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Ehrhoff – Rome2:47
xG 0.09–0.14 (38%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Rome – Tanev9:25
xG 0.30–0.61 (33%)attempts 8–9goals 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.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN is favoured, below it NSH. 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, Nashville Predators win this game 85% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − NSH), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).