Thu, Mar 8, 2012·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
Winnipeg Jets 2, Vancouver Canucks 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vancouver Canucks win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WPG | 011 | 19 | 112 | 232 |
| VAN | 020 | 112 | 213 | 345 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 1:44VANRyan KeslerSHUnassisted · Wrist, 0.11 xG0–1
- P2 15:22WPGKyle WellwoodAssists: Evander Kane · Wrist, 0.42 xG1–1
- P3 3:34WPGBlake WheelerAssists: Andrew Ladd · Wrist, 0.15 xG2–1
- P3 6:28VANAlexander EdlerAssists: Sami Salo, Chris Higgins · Wrist, 0.01 xG2–2
- P3 14:17VANSamuel PahlssonGWGAssists: Kevin Bieksa, Jannik Hansen · Slap, 0.04 xG2–3
Penalties (4)
- P1 8:52WPGGrant Clitsome: High sticking2 min
- P2 0:37VANAlexander Edler: Tripping2 min
- P2 6:08VANMarc-Andre Gragnani: Tripping2 min
- P2 9:58VANRyan Kesler: 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 20:00Slater won the faceoff against Sedin
- 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.
Winnipeg Jets
Forward lines
- bestWellwood – Kane – Burmistrov10:13
xG 0.83–0.20 (81%)attempts 17–12goals 1–0
- Antropov – Kane – Burmistrov2:32
xG 0.00–0.09 (0%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
- Antropov – Miettinen – Stapleton6:07
xG 0.02–0.27 (6%)attempts 1–7goals 0–0
- Ladd – Wheeler – Little13:54
xG 0.39–0.74 (35%)attempts 12–18goals 0–2
Defence pairs
- bestStuart – Jones10:07
xG 0.62–0.24 (72%)attempts 14–15goals 1–0
- Hainsey – Clitsome16:38
xG 0.66–0.86 (43%)attempts 10–23goals 0–1
- Enstrom – Byfuglien19:18
xG 0.54–0.78 (41%)attempts 18–25goals 1–1
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestSedin – Sedin – Burrows13:14
xG 0.73–0.37 (66%)attempts 19–6goals 0–0
- Pahlsson – Hansen – Raymond9:25
xG 0.32–0.20 (61%)attempts 12–10goals 1–0
- Higgins – Kesler – Booth10:30
xG 0.44–0.47 (48%)attempts 21–12goals 1–1
- Malhotra – Lapierre – Kassian5:01
xG 0.06–0.45 (12%)attempts 6–4goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestGragnani – Tanev9:12
xG 0.37–0.01 (96%)attempts 11–2goals 0–0
- Edler – Tanev3:04
xG 0.35–0.17 (67%)attempts 6–3goals 0–1
- Hamhuis – Bieksa19:03
xG 0.58–0.63 (48%)attempts 21–19goals 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.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN is favoured, below it WPG. 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 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − WPG), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).