Sun, Feb 12, 2012·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Tampa Bay Lightning 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 91% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 25 | 09 | 09 | 223 |
| PIT | 18 | 319 | 014 | 441 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 9:58TBLSteve DownieAssists: Teddy Purcell, Victor Hedman · Slap, 0.03 xG1–0
- P1 10:09TBLSteve DownieAssists: Teddy Purcell, Brett Clark · Tip-in, 0.15 xG2–0
- P1 16:15PITEvgeni MalkinPPAssists: Kris Letang, James Neal · Slap, 0.06 xG2–1
- P2 0:56PITChris KunitzAssists: Kris Letang, Brent Johnson · Wrist, 0.15 xG2–2
- P2 4:28PITKris LetangGWGAssists: Chris Kunitz, James Neal · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–3
- P2 10:54PITEvgeni MalkinAssists: Chris Kunitz, James Neal · Tip-in, 0.12 xG2–4
Penalties (6)
- P1 0:28PITJordan Staal: High sticking2 min
- P1 15:25TBLSteven Stamkos: Holding2 min · PPG
- P2 10:58TBLPavel Kubina: Tripping2 min
- P3 5:37TBLSteve Downie: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P3 8:44TBLBruno Gervais: Tripping2 min
- P3 9:51PITChris Kunitz: Slashing2 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 20:00Lecavalier won the faceoff against Staal
- 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.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestSt. Louis – Lecavalier – Pyatt5:29
xG 0.63–0.27 (70%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
- Hall – Wyman – Connolly2:21
xG 0.15–0.11 (58%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
- Moore – Thompson – Connolly3:05
xG 0.04–0.02 (71%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Moore – Thompson – Pyatt5:38
xG 0.05–0.05 (50%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Brewer – Hedman11:10
xG 0.33–0.31 (51%)attempts 11–5goals 1–0
- Clark – Kubina6:22
xG 0.26–0.29 (47%)attempts 6–9goals 1–0
- Kubina – Brewer5:47
xG 0.20–0.31 (39%)attempts 4–8goals 0–2
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Malkin – Neal13:05
xG 1.08–0.80 (57%)attempts 17–9goals 3–0
- Cooke – Dupuis – Staal8:25
xG 0.46–0.26 (64%)attempts 9–6goals 0–0
- Sullivan – O'Reilly – Jeffrey4:23
xG 0.16–0.04 (81%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Park – Adams – Vitale3:50
xG 0.00–0.15 (0%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMartin – Engelland10:55
xG 0.84–0.43 (66%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- Orpik – Letang13:58
xG 0.84–0.45 (65%)attempts 19–11goals 2–1
- Martin – Michalek2:01
xG 0.04–0.03 (58%)attempts 2–2goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it TBL. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 91% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).