Wed, Feb 15, 2012·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Anaheim Ducks 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 69% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 08 | 113 | 18 | 229 |
| PIT | 113 | 07 | 06 | 126 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:27PITJordan StaalAssists: Pascal Dupuis · Wrist, 0.03 xG0–1
- P2 19:08ANACorey PerryAssists: Bobby Ryan, Luca Sbisa · Wrist, 0.10 xG1–1
- P3 7:51ANATeemu SelanneGWGAssists: Matt Beleskey, Sheldon Brookbank · Backhand, 0.04 xG2–1
Penalties (4)
- P2 2:25PITJordan Staal: Hooking2 min
- P2 5:55PITEvgeni Malkin: Tripping2 min
- P2 13:52ANACorey Perry: Slashing2 min
- P3 17:17PITChris 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 20:00Malkin won the faceoff against Koivu
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestBlake – Getzlaf – Perry12:53
xG 0.93–0.16 (85%)attempts 19–10goals 0–1
- Cogliano – Beleskey – Bonino8:18
xG 0.64–0.15 (81%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Hagman – Parros – Pelley4:23
xG 0.00–0.03 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 0–0
- Selanne – Koivu – Ryan9:11
xG 0.03–0.21 (14%)attempts 3–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestVisnovsky – Sbisa15:07
xG 1.11–0.34 (76%)attempts 21–16goals 0–0
- Lydman – Beauchemin2:25
xG 0.03–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Lydman – Brookbank14:50
xG 0.13–0.26 (34%)attempts 4–16goals 1–1
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestPark – Adams – Vitale4:18
xG 0.53–0.00 (100%)attempts 8–0goals 0–0
- Cooke – Dupuis – Staal11:20
xG 0.14–0.36 (29%)attempts 9–13goals 1–0
- Kunitz – Malkin – Neal14:34
xG 0.42–0.75 (36%)attempts 16–11goals 0–2
- Sullivan – O'Reilly – Jeffrey5:08
xG 0.04–0.63 (6%)attempts 5–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMichalek – Niskanen10:55
xG 0.70–0.27 (72%)attempts 12–6goals 0–0
- Martin – Niskanen2:05
xG 0.09–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–0goals 0–0
- Orpik – Michalek2:19
xG 0.00–0.01 (0%)attempts 0–1goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it ANA. 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 69% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).