Skip to content
Ice Lab

Tue, Dec 6, 2011·HP Pavilion at San Jose, San Jose

Minnesota Wild 2, San Jose Sharks 1

Expected result

Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 79% of the time.

SJS winsMIN wins

By period

Goals and shots on goal in each period.

TeamP1P2P3Total
MIN2100605221
SJS12301009142

Goals, with shots on goal in grey.

Scoring

Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.

  1. P1 1:00SJSJoe PavelskiAssists: Dan Boyle · Wrist, 0.25 xG0–1
  2. P1 17:41MINMikko KoivuAssists: Dany Heatley, Casey Wellman · Backhand, 0.11 xG1–1
  3. P1 19:48MINPierre-Marc BouchardPPGWGAssists: Mikko Koivu, Jared Spurgeon · Wrist, 0.09 xG2–1
Penalties (4)
  1. P1 10:45MINCody Almond: High sticking double minor4 min
  2. P1 19:11SJSTorrey Mitchell: Tripping2 min · PPG
  3. P2 18:08MINDany Heatley: Boarding2 min
  4. P3 8:17SJSPatrick Marleau: Boarding2 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.

MIN00 SOG · 0.0 xG

20:00

P1

0.0 xG · 0 SOG0SJS
45% to win55% to win
← MIN attackSJS attack →
  1. P1 20:00Handzus won the faceoff against Brodziak
  • Goal
  • Shot
  • Miss
  • Block
  • Hit
  • Takeaway
  • Giveaway
  • Faceoff
  • Penalty

The numbers

Team totals, side by side.

MINSJS
21Shots on goal42
2.0Expected goals3.9
45Shot attempts93
26Faceoffs won31
2Power plays3
6Penalty minutes4
27Hits17
33Blocked shots17
15Giveaways16
6Takeaways8

Line combinations that worked

Model-based

Each team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.

Minnesota Wild

Forward lines

  1. bestCullen – Bouchard – Wellman10:47

    xG 0.59–0.33 (64%)attempts 14–14goals 0–0

  2. Heatley – Koivu – Clutterbuck3:34

    xG 0.00–0.03 (0%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0

  3. Staubitz – Powe – Almond5:02

    xG 0.01–0.13 (10%)attempts 2–7goals 0–0

  4. Heatley – Koivu – Powe5:58

    xG 0.07–0.26 (21%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. bestSchultz – Lundin15:15

    xG 1.15–0.56 (67%)attempts 15–14goals 1–1

  2. Zanon – Stoner12:50

    xG 0.25–0.61 (29%)attempts 8–21goals 0–0

  3. Scandella – Spurgeon16:52

    xG 0.23–1.49 (13%)attempts 14–32goals 0–0

San Jose Sharks

Forward lines

  1. bestThornton – Marleau – Pavelski10:01

    xG 1.23–0.49 (71%)attempts 18–5goals 1–1

  2. Handzus – Mitchell – McGinn8:11

    xG 0.62–0.35 (64%)attempts 18–4goals 0–0

  3. Thornton – Winchester – Pavelski4:01

    xG 0.13–0.10 (56%)attempts 8–2goals 0–0

  4. Handzus – Marleau – McGinn3:18

    xG 0.00–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. bestBoyle – Vlasic13:52

    xG 0.69–0.41 (63%)attempts 19–11goals 1–1

  2. Braun – Demers12:16

    xG 0.43–0.25 (63%)attempts 14–8goals 0–0

  3. Vandermeer – Burns12:05

    xG 0.90–0.74 (55%)attempts 21–10goals 0–0

How the game flowed

Model-based

Chance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.

Expected goals flow

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.

SJS 3.9 xGMIN 2.0 xG
01234P1P2P3EndxG

Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute

SJSMIN

Win probability

Model-based

How each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.

Win probability

SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS is favoured, below it MIN. Dots are goals.

Excitement 20/100 · #957 of 1230 this seasonSwing 1.04 · 3 goals in reachComeback index 25% (winner's lowest chance)
MIN 100%5050%50SJS 100%P1P2P3EndBiggest swing +19 pts

Did the better team win?

Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.

Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 79% of the time.

SJS winsMIN wins

Simulated goal difference (SJS − MIN), 10,000 replays

-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7

The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).