Wed, Feb 1, 2012·Air Canada Centre, Toronto
Pittsburgh Penguins 0, Toronto Maple Leafs 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Toronto Maple Leafs win this game 54% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 04 | 012 | 09 | 025 |
| TOR | 08 | 09 | 17 | 124 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 13:55TORClarke MacArthurGWGAssists: Mikhail Grabovski, Nikolay Kulemin · Wrist, 0.08 xG0–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 3:37TORClarke MacArthur: Hooking2 min
- P1 5:25PITKris Letang: Boarding2 min
- P2 11:34PITEvgeni Malkin: Holding2 min
- P3 4:43TORMikhail Grabovski: Tripping2 min
- P3 8:38PITKris Letang: Slashing2 min
- P3 14:59PITZbynek Michalek: Interference2 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 20:00Vitale won the faceoff against Bozak
- 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestAdams – McDonald – Vitale4:23
xG 0.13–0.05 (73%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Malkin – Neal14:09
xG 0.45–0.40 (53%)attempts 11–17goals 0–1
- Park – Sullivan – Kennedy2:17
xG 0.09–0.06 (61%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Park – Sullivan – Cooke4:32
xG 0.23–0.32 (42%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMartin – Michalek15:43
xG 0.73–0.14 (84%)attempts 19–10goals 0–0
- Orpik – Niskanen2:42
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Niskanen – Lovejoy6:49
xG 0.24–0.46 (34%)attempts 6–12goals 0–0
Toronto Maple Leafs
Forward lines
- bestArmstrong – Steckel – Brown8:16
xG 0.63–0.21 (75%)attempts 12–5goals 0–0
- Lupul – Kessel – Bozak11:05
xG 0.69–0.43 (61%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
- Connolly – Lombardi – Crabb7:53
xG 0.28–0.17 (63%)attempts 6–11goals 0–0
- MacArthur – Grabovski – Kulemin10:17
xG 0.34–0.41 (45%)attempts 16–7goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestLiles – Franson12:25
xG 1.21–0.39 (76%)attempts 18–14goals 0–0
- Schenn – Gardiner9:44
xG 0.52–0.30 (63%)attempts 10–13goals 1–0
- Phaneuf – Gunnarsson14:49
xG 0.32–0.61 (34%)attempts 15–10goals 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.
TOR's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TOR is favoured, below it PIT. 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, Toronto Maple Leafs win this game 54% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TOR − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).