Mon, Mar 19, 2012·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Vancouver Canucks 0, Minnesota Wild 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 61% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 011 | 012 | 010 | 033 |
| MIN | 112 | 017 | 15 | 234 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 19:36MINErik ChristensenPPGWGAssists: Kyle Brodziak, Cal Clutterbuck · Wrist, 0.20 xG0–1
- P3 19:57MINKyle BrodziakENUnassisted · Wrist, 0.54 xG0–2
Penalties (8)
- P1 18:04MINNick Johnson: Fighting5 min
- P1 18:04VANAlexandre Burrows: Roughing2 min · PPG
- P1 18:04VANKevin Bieksa: Fighting5 min
- P2 4:34MINClayton Stoner: High sticking2 min
- P2 18:52VANRyan Kesler: Clipping2 min
- P3 2:13MINClayton Stoner: Roughing2 min
- P3 2:13VANMarc-Andre Gragnani: Roughing2 min
- P3 14:00VANJannik Hansen: Interference goalkeeper2 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 20:00Cullen won the faceoff against Kesler
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestSedin – Sedin – Burrows12:47
xG 0.65–0.20 (77%)attempts 17–8goals 0–0
- Higgins – Kesler – Booth13:06
xG 0.42–0.31 (57%)attempts 11–12goals 0–0
- Pahlsson – Malhotra – Hansen7:14
xG 0.11–0.14 (44%)attempts 8–5goals 0–0
- Lapierre – Weise – Kassian5:35
xG 0.08–0.40 (17%)attempts 3–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHamhuis – Bieksa9:25
xG 0.46–0.23 (66%)attempts 8–8goals 0–0
- Hamhuis – Gragnani3:43
xG 0.21–0.06 (77%)attempts 10–3goals 0–0
- Rome – Tanev8:18
xG 0.21–0.34 (39%)attempts 7–7goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestCullen – Setoguchi – Clutterbuck10:09
xG 0.56–0.26 (68%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Heatley – Brodziak – Johnson10:32
xG 0.29–0.18 (62%)attempts 8–12goals 0–0
- Veilleux – Christensen – Powe9:13
xG 0.27–0.18 (60%)attempts 10–12goals 0–0
- Peters – Ortmeyer – Kassian7:06
xG 0.24–0.22 (51%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestKampfer – Prosser8:15
xG 0.51–0.07 (88%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
- Scandella – Spurgeon13:28
xG 0.53–0.30 (64%)attempts 15–17goals 0–0
- Stoner – Prosser2:43
xG 0.10–0.06 (63%)attempts 3–4goals 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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it VAN. 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 61% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).