Sat, Jan 21, 2012·Honda Center, Anaheim
Ottawa Senators 1, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 65% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTT | 09 | 010 | 113 | 132 |
| ANA | 010 | 211 | 08 | 229 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 6:15ANACorey PerryAssists: Bobby Ryan, Ryan Getzlaf · Backhand, 0.10 xG0–1
- P2 17:00ANALubomir VisnovskyGWGAssists: Niklas Hagman, Saku Koivu · Wrist, 0.14 xG0–2
- P3 8:51OTTChris NeilAssists: Nick Foligno, Erik Karlsson · Wrist, 0.27 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 1:21ANASaku Koivu: Hooking2 min
- P1 7:06OTTZack Smith: Holding2 min
- P1 11:53ANAToni Lydman: Roughing2 min
- P2 10:25OTTMilan Michalek: Closing hand on puck2 min
- P3 14:57OTTErik Condra: 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 20:00Getzlaf won the faceoff against Spezza
- 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
- bestNeil – Foligno – Smith9:10
xG 0.64–0.08 (88%)attempts 11–3goals 1–0
- Alfredsson – Condra – Turris6:13
xG 0.43–0.00 (100%)attempts 13–2goals 0–0
- Konopka – Daugavins – Petersson3:30
xG 0.00–0.02 (0%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Alfredsson – Michalek – Turris5:11
xG 0.18–0.27 (41%)attempts 6–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestPhillips – Karlsson2:02
xG 0.54–0.14 (80%)attempts 5–2goals 1–0
- Gonchar – Cowen13:41
xG 0.65–0.54 (54%)attempts 18–13goals 0–0
- Karlsson – Cowen2:27
xG 0.07–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Perry – Ryan15:38
xG 0.82–0.32 (72%)attempts 15–10goals 1–0
- Selanne – Koivu – Hagman11:21
xG 0.90–0.41 (68%)attempts 9–12goals 1–0
- Bell – Parros – Pelley4:13
xG 0.02–0.07 (26%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
- Hagman – Cogliano – Bonino2:34
xG 0.00–0.12 (0%)attempts 0–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBeauchemin – Fowler16:45
xG 1.24–0.42 (74%)attempts 20–13goals 1–0
- Visnovsky – Sbisa12:56
xG 0.48–0.39 (55%)attempts 6–13goals 1–0
- Lydman – Brookbank13:29
xG 0.34–0.76 (31%)attempts 11–17goals 0–1
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 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 65% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − OTT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).