Tue, Jan 24, 2012·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
Edmonton Oilers 2, Vancouver Canucks 3 (SO)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vancouver Canucks win this game 83% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | SO | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDM | 012 | 19 | 18 | 03 | 1 | 232 |
| VAN | 19 | 07 | 111 | 08 | 2 | 335 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 10:24VANDaniel SedinAssists: Alexandre Burrows, Dan Hamhuis · Wrist, 0.05 xG0–1
- P2 9:43EDMShawn HorcoffAssists: Taylor Hall, Ales Hemsky · Slap, 0.17 xG1–1
- P3 5:00VANDavid BoothAssists: Ryan Kesler, Chris Higgins · Wrist, 0.31 xG1–2
- P3 15:49EDMTaylor HallPPAssists: Corey Potter, Ales Hemsky · Slap, 0.04 xG2–2
Shootout
- 1. VAN Alexander Edler scored
- 2. EDM Jordan Eberle stopped
- 3. VAN Mason Raymond stopped
- 4. EDM Sam Gagner stopped
- 5. VAN Alexandre Burrows stopped
- 6. EDM Ales Hemsky scored
- 7. VAN Ryan Kesler stopped
- 8. EDM Taylor Hall stopped
- 9. VAN Cody Hodgson scored
- 10. EDM Shawn Horcoff stopped
Penalties (3)
- P2 2:07EDMEric Belanger: Hooking2 min
- P3 5:10EDMJeff Petry: Hooking2 min
- P3 14:58VANDan Hamhuis: Interference2 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 20:00Kesler won the faceoff against Horcoff
- 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.
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- bestHordichuk – Jones – Lander3:50
xG 0.19–0.01 (97%)attempts 8–1goals 0–0
- Horcoff – Hemsky – Hall14:22
xG 0.68–0.87 (44%)attempts 11–18goals 1–2
- Smyth – Belanger – Paajarvi12:52
xG 0.08–0.61 (12%)attempts 6–13goals 0–0
- Gagner – Eberle – Hartikainen14:27
xG 0.12–0.91 (12%)attempts 7–19goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Potter – Petry2:13
xG 0.01–0.08 (7%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
- Sutton – Peckham16:39
xG 0.55–0.77 (41%)attempts 16–12goals 0–1
- Smid – Petry15:26
xG 0.44–0.73 (38%)attempts 13–17goals 1–1
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestHiggins – Kesler – Booth13:13
xG 0.80–0.34 (70%)attempts 15–7goals 1–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Burrows14:00
xG 0.57–0.14 (80%)attempts 14–9goals 1–0
- Hansen – Raymond – Hodgson10:10
xG 0.13–0.20 (39%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
- Malhotra – Lapierre – Weise6:38
xG 0.23–0.32 (42%)attempts 7–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestHamhuis – Bieksa20:16
xG 0.93–0.28 (77%)attempts 20–10goals 2–0
- Ballard – Rome12:25
xG 0.84–0.43 (66%)attempts 12–14goals 0–1
- Salo – Edler17:06
xG 0.46–0.27 (63%)attempts 13–13goals 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.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN is favoured, below it EDM. 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, Vancouver Canucks win this game 83% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − EDM), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).