Sat, Oct 29, 2011·St. Pete Times Forum, Tampa
Winnipeg Jets 0, Tampa Bay Lightning 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WPG | 010 | 07 | 011 | 028 |
| TBL | 011 | 113 | 03 | 127 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 19:20TBLVincent LecavalierPPGWGAssists: Steven Stamkos, Eric Brewer · Slap, 0.13 xG0–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 9:59TBLDominic Moore: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P1 17:42WPGToby Enstrom: Tripping2 min
- P2 2:14WPGTanner Glass: Roughing2 min
- P2 8:46WPGTanner Glass: High sticking2 min
- P2 14:48TBLPavel Kubina: Interference2 min
- P2 18:54WPGMark Stuart: Holding2 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 20:00Lecavalier won the faceoff against Little
- 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.
Winnipeg Jets
Forward lines
- bestAntropov – Kane – Burmistrov12:07
xG 0.41–0.22 (65%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
- Ladd – Wheeler – Little8:27
xG 0.33–0.24 (58%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
- Antropov – Wellwood – Kane2:21
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 0–0goals 0–0
- Thorburn – Slater – Glass4:59
xG 0.04–0.04 (49%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEnstrom – Byfuglien15:59
xG 0.63–0.42 (60%)attempts 16–8goals 0–0
- Oduya – Jones11:50
xG 0.24–0.20 (55%)attempts 7–9goals 0–0
- Stuart – Bogosian14:33
xG 0.52–0.78 (40%)attempts 17–19goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestMoore – Shannon – Downie7:13
xG 0.31–0.02 (95%)attempts 9–2goals 0–0
- Malone – Purcell – Stamkos10:03
xG 0.26–0.02 (91%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- St. Louis – Lecavalier – Connolly5:47
xG 0.34–0.41 (45%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
- St. Louis – Lecavalier – Moore2:28
xG 0.02–0.19 (11%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestClark – Kubina11:30
xG 0.49–0.43 (53%)attempts 11–12goals 0–0
- Brewer – Hedman15:16
xG 0.28–0.30 (48%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
- Bergeron – Gilroy13:55
xG 0.48–0.60 (45%)attempts 15–15goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it WPG. 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − WPG), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).