Wed, Mar 16, 2011·Honda Center, Anaheim
St. Louis Blues 1, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, St. Louis Blues win this game 54% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STL | 07 | 114 | 010 | 131 |
| ANA | 08 | 19 | 17 | 224 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 9:54STLNathan OystrickPPAssists: Matt D'Agostini, Carlo Colaiacovo · Wrist, 0.07 xG1–0
- P2 11:28ANAJason BlakeAssists: Cam Fowler, Teemu Selanne · Backhand, 0.07 xG1–1
- P3 1:50ANAJason BlakeGWGAssists: Lubomir Visnovsky, Saku Koivu · Deflected, 0.10 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 6:59STLAndy McDonald: High sticking2 min
- P1 18:51ANAAndy Sutton: Interference2 min
- P2 1:36STLB.J. Crombeen: Tripping2 min
- P2 5:53STLCarlo Colaiacovo: Interference2 min
- P2 9:39ANALubomir Visnovsky: Tripping2 min · PPG
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 20:00Koivu won the faceoff against Backes
- 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.
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestCrombeen – Porter – Oshie10:28
xG 0.77–0.06 (93%)attempts 16–4goals 0–0
- McDonald – Stewart – Berglund3:18
xG 0.20–0.03 (88%)attempts 6–2goals 0–0
- McDonald – Backes – D'Agostini9:09
xG 0.23–0.29 (44%)attempts 7–6goals 0–2
- Janssen – Cracknell – Reaves3:39
xG 0.03–0.17 (14%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestOystrick – Polak9:35
xG 0.53–0.20 (73%)attempts 14–4goals 0–1
- Polak – Cole6:46
xG 0.31–0.04 (88%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
- Cole – Shattenkirk12:37
xG 0.40–0.52 (44%)attempts 12–10goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestWinchester – McMillan – Sexton6:16
xG 0.36–0.19 (65%)attempts 7–5goals 0–0
- Selanne – Koivu – Blake13:51
xG 0.42–0.32 (57%)attempts 9–8goals 2–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Ryan17:00
xG 0.52–0.59 (47%)attempts 13–21goals 0–0
- Marchant – Ruutu – Parros4:45
xG 0.17–0.25 (40%)attempts 4–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBeauchemin – Sbisa15:00
xG 0.73–0.64 (54%)attempts 13–20goals 0–0
- Lydman – Visnovsky18:00
xG 0.64–0.62 (51%)attempts 20–18goals 1–0
- Sutton – Fowler13:06
xG 0.31–0.45 (41%)attempts 6–12goals 1–0
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 STL. 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, St. Louis Blues win this game 54% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − STL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).