Fri, Mar 25, 2011·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
New Jersey Devils 0, Pittsburgh Penguins 1 (SO)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 65% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | SO | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJD | 01 | 09 | 010 | 01 | 0 | 021 |
| PIT | 03 | 013 | 07 | 03 | 1 | 126 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- No goals in regulation or overtime.
Shootout
- 1. PIT Kris Letang stopped
- 2. NJD Brian Rolston stopped
- 3. PIT Alex Kovalev stopped
- 4. NJD Ilya Kovalchuk stopped
- 5. PIT James Neal scored
- 6. NJD Patrik Elias stopped
Penalties (6)
- P1 5:38NJDMattias Tedenby: Holding2 min
- P2 3:28PITKris Letang: Hooking2 min
- P2 10:08NJDBrian Rolston: Tripping2 min
- P2 17:01PITDeryk Engelland: Roughing2 min
- P3 11:18PITMatt Niskanen: Slashing2 min
- P3 15:40PITBen Lovejoy: 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 20:00Zajac won the faceoff against Staal
- 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.
New Jersey Devils
Forward lines
- bestMair – Steckel – Zharkov4:58
xG 0.16–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Rolston – Elias – Zubrus9:02
xG 0.09–0.20 (31%)attempts 7–6goals 0–0
- Clarkson – Tedenby – Josefson9:16
xG 0.09–0.32 (22%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
- Kovalchuk – Zajac – Palmieri11:33
xG 0.19–0.57 (25%)attempts 9–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestFayne – Greene3:04
xG 0.16–0.01 (93%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Tallinder – Fayne13:55
xG 0.29–0.21 (58%)attempts 16–7goals 0–0
- Tallinder – Volchenkov3:02
xG 0.04–0.01 (82%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Kennedy – Staal9:53
xG 0.60–0.12 (83%)attempts 13–5goals 0–0
- Kovalev – Talbot – Neal8:11
xG 0.19–0.07 (72%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
- Asham – Rupp – Comrie3:46
xG 0.25–0.14 (63%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Dupuis – Talbot – Conner2:09
xG 0.00–0.01 (0%)attempts 0–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Lovejoy12:48
xG 0.45–0.16 (73%)attempts 13–9goals 0–0
- Martin – Michalek15:41
xG 0.48–0.21 (70%)attempts 11–14goals 0–0
- Engelland – Niskanen9:28
xG 0.11–0.35 (24%)attempts 6–5goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it NJD. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 65% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − NJD), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).