Fri, Mar 9, 2012·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Florida Panthers 1, Pittsburgh Penguins 2 (SO)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 66% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | SO | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLA | 012 | 111 | 04 | 02 | 0 | 129 |
| PIT | 06 | 015 | 110 | 03 | 2 | 234 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:17FLATomas FleischmannAssists: Wojtek Wolski · Wrist, 0.26 xG1–0
- P3 2:56PITSteve SullivanAssists: Jordan Staal, Pascal Dupuis · Backhand, 0.06 xG1–1
Shootout
- 1. PIT James Neal scored
- 2. FLA Wojtek Wolski stopped
- 3. PIT Evgeni Malkin scored
- 4. FLA Mikael Samuelsson stopped
Penalties (4)
- P1 16:01PITPascal Dupuis: Tripping2 min
- P2 9:47FLAMikael Samuelsson: Slashing2 min
- P2 9:47PITMatt Cooke: Slashing2 min
- P3 4:15FLAKrys Barch: High sticking double minor4 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 20:00Weiss 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.
Florida Panthers
Forward lines
- bestWeiss – Fleischmann – Wolski12:09
xG 0.91–0.28 (77%)attempts 14–10goals 1–1
- Madden – Barch – Skille5:21
xG 0.03–0.09 (24%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Sturm – Kopecky – Matthias7:41
xG 0.14–0.28 (34%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0
- Samuelsson – Goc – Bergenheim11:04
xG 0.09–0.38 (19%)attempts 12–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestGarrison – Gudbranson12:48
xG 0.62–0.49 (56%)attempts 10–11goals 1–1
- Weaver – Garrison2:16
xG 0.01–0.00 (90%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Campbell – Garrison2:37
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 0–2goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Malkin – Neal14:25
xG 0.25–0.11 (69%)attempts 13–9goals 0–0
- Cooke – Kennedy – Vitale8:33
xG 0.30–0.29 (51%)attempts 10–7goals 0–0
- Park – Asham – Adams4:39
xG 0.00–0.03 (0%)attempts 0–4goals 0–0
- Sullivan – Dupuis – Staal11:06
xG 0.50–0.60 (45%)attempts 11–8goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestNiskanen – Despres10:55
xG 0.40–0.18 (69%)attempts 10–5goals 0–0
- Strait – Lovejoy13:18
xG 0.34–0.30 (53%)attempts 7–12goals 0–0
- Niskanen – Lovejoy2:50
xG 0.04–0.01 (78%)attempts 2–3goals 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 FLA. 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 66% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − FLA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).