Tue, Apr 3, 2012·Jobing.com Arena, Glendale
Columbus Blue Jackets 0, Phoenix Coyotes 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Columbus Blue Jackets win this game 91% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBJ | 017 | 022 | 015 | 054 |
| PHX | 08 | 211 | 03 | 222 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 5:45PHXBoyd GordonGWGAssists: Lauri Korpikoski, Taylor Pyatt · Wrist, 0.04 xG0–1
- P2 7:48PHXGilbert BruleAssists: Michal Rozsival, Daymond Langkow · Backhand, 0.17 xG0–2
Penalties (8)
- P1 4:07PHXRostislav Klesla: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P1 13:34PHXMichal Rozsival: Hooking2 min
- P2 9:42CBJR.J. Umberger: Cross checking2 min
- P2 10:10PHXMartin Hanzal: Hooking2 min
- P2 14:47PHXAntoine Vermette: Hooking2 min
- P2 18:41PHXDerek Morris: Holding2 min
- P3 2:10PHXDerek Morris: Interference2 min
- P3 19:48PHXDerek Morris: High sticking2 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 20:00Hanzal won the faceoff against Letestu
- 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.
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forward lines
- bestUmberger – Brassard – Atkinson8:54
xG 0.55–0.31 (64%)attempts 5–9goals 0–0
- Russell – Dorsett – Johansen7:27
xG 0.54–0.40 (57%)attempts 10–8goals 0–1
- Boyce – Boll – Gillies7:14
xG 0.19–0.24 (44%)attempts 7–10goals 0–1
- Prospal – Nash – Letestu11:30
xG 0.54–0.72 (43%)attempts 17–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWisniewski – Johnson19:27
xG 1.24–0.56 (69%)attempts 28–17goals 0–0
- Wisniewski – Nikitin2:05
xG 0.16–0.06 (72%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Johnson – Nikitin2:08
xG 0.13–0.05 (70%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
Phoenix Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestWhitney – Vrbata – Hanzal12:21
xG 0.66–0.42 (61%)attempts 16–13goals 0–0
- Torres – Vermette – Brule2:38
xG 0.17–0.00 (100%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
- Langkow – Torres – Brule3:40
xG 0.19–0.22 (46%)attempts 4–5goals 1–0
- Pyatt – Gordon – Korpikoski8:08
xG 0.36–0.45 (45%)attempts 7–9goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestRozsival – Klesla12:38
xG 1.09–0.73 (60%)attempts 16–15goals 1–0
- Aucoin – Ekman-Larsson14:31
xG 0.48–0.62 (44%)attempts 14–16goals 0–0
- Morris – Yandle14:26
xG 0.19–0.65 (23%)attempts 12–12goals 1–0
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.
PHX's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHX is favoured, below it CBJ. 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, Columbus Blue Jackets win this game 91% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHX − CBJ), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).