Fri, Dec 23, 2011·RBC Center, Raleigh
Ottawa Senators 1, Carolina Hurricanes 2 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Carolina Hurricanes win this game 87% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTT | 16 | 08 | 07 | 02 | 123 |
| CAR | 119 | 010 | 07 | 12 | 238 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:33CARAndreas NodlAssists: Riley Nash, Jamie McBain · Snap, 0.05 xG0–1
- P1 17:15OTTFilip KubaAssists: Nick Foligno, Kyle Turris · Wrist, 0.01 xG1–1
- OT 1:36CARTuomo RuutuGWGAssists: Jay Harrison, Jussi Jokinen · Tip-in, 0.15 xG1–2
Penalties (4)
- P1 8:11OTTZack Smith: Hooking2 min
- P1 8:20OTTErik Condra: Hooking2 min
- P2 3:58OTTJared Cowen: Interference2 min
- P3 9:21CARJaroslav Spacek: Tripping2 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 20:00Spezza won the faceoff against Sutter
- 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.
Ottawa Senators
Forward lines
- bestAlfredsson – Spezza – Greening13:01
xG 0.58–0.19 (75%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Konopka – Hoffman – Butler6:06
xG 0.23–0.26 (47%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
- Foligno – Turris – Butler5:02
xG 0.46–0.64 (42%)attempts 2–10goals 0–0
- Foligno – Condra – Turris7:26
xG 0.04–0.23 (16%)attempts 3–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestGonchar – Karlsson2:00
xG 0.18–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Kuba – Karlsson18:01
xG 0.59–0.50 (54%)attempts 17–13goals 1–0
- Phillips – Carkner12:17
xG 0.23–0.73 (24%)attempts 11–16goals 0–1
Carolina Hurricanes
Forward lines
- bestLaRose – Staal – Bowman14:40
xG 1.23–0.46 (73%)attempts 23–12goals 0–0
- Ponikarovsky – Ruutu – Jokinen11:00
xG 1.03–0.67 (61%)attempts 22–10goals 0–0
- Stewart – Nodl – Nash5:23
xG 0.16–0.09 (64%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
- Dwyer – Tlusty – Sutter12:43
xG 0.22–0.60 (27%)attempts 9–13goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestAllen – Spacek13:25
xG 0.77–0.24 (76%)attempts 27–10goals 0–0
- Gleason – McBain15:31
xG 1.33–0.91 (59%)attempts 23–13goals 1–0
- Allen – Gleason3:06
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–2goals 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.
CAR's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CAR is favoured, below it OTT. 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, Carolina Hurricanes win this game 87% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CAR − OTT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).