Thu, Feb 2, 2012·Pepsi Center, Denver
Minnesota Wild 1, Colorado Avalanche 0
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 50% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 13 | 011 | 07 | 121 |
| COL | 010 | 010 | 017 | 037 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:04MINGreg ZanonGWGAssists: Dany Heatley, Kyle Brodziak · Slap, 0.03 xG1–0
Penalties (10)
- P1 7:58COLKyle Quincey: Interference2 min
- P2 4:48MINDarroll Powe: Roughing2 min
- P2 4:48MINDarroll Powe: Interference2 min
- P2 4:48COLChuck Kobasew: Roughing2 min
- P2 4:48COLChuck Kobasew: Roughing2 min
- P2 7:04COLCody McLeod: Fighting5 min
- P2 7:04MINClayton Stoner: Fighting5 min
- P2 11:03MINCarson McMillan: Fighting5 min
- P2 11:03COLChuck Kobasew: Fighting5 min
- P3 18:40MINJustin Falk: 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 20:00Brodziak won the faceoff against Stastny
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestHeatley – Brodziak – Johnson17:34
xG 0.74–0.35 (68%)attempts 16–16goals 1–0
- Ortmeyer – Kassian – Rau3:18
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 0–2goals 0–0
- Cullen – Setoguchi – Clutterbuck13:25
xG 0.17–0.31 (36%)attempts 8–15goals 0–0
- Peters – Powe – McMillan9:15
xG 0.17–0.67 (20%)attempts 4–21goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchultz – Spurgeon17:46
xG 0.88–0.30 (74%)attempts 17–16goals 0–0
- Zanon – Spurgeon3:31
xG 0.18–0.03 (85%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
- Zanon – Stoner7:18
xG 0.10–0.06 (63%)attempts 7–5goals 1–0
Colorado Avalanche
Forward lines
- bestHejduk – O'Reilly – Landeskog10:38
xG 0.33–0.07 (82%)attempts 11–5goals 0–0
- Mueller – O'Reilly – Landeskog5:12
xG 0.25–0.15 (63%)attempts 9–1goals 0–0
- Kobasew – Van Der Gulik – McLeod2:39
xG 0.13–0.03 (80%)attempts 7–1goals 0–1
- Hejduk – Kobasew – Stastny6:04
xG 0.18–0.12 (61%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWilson – Elliott16:37
xG 0.80–0.22 (79%)attempts 27–5goals 0–0
- Quincey – Johnson19:20
xG 0.93–0.35 (73%)attempts 31–12goals 0–1
- O'Byrne – Hejda17:51
xG 0.22–0.76 (22%)attempts 13–19goals 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.
COL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line COL is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 50% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (COL − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).