Thu, Jan 31, 2013·HP Pavilion at San Jose, San Jose
Edmonton Oilers 2, San Jose Sharks 3 (SO)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 84% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | SO | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDM | 011 | 19 | 16 | 02 | 0 | 228 |
| SJS | 07 | 211 | 013 | 07 | 2 | 338 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:32SJSLogan CoutureUnassisted · Wrist, 0.04 xG0–1
- P2 8:11SJSJoe PavelskiUnassisted · Wrist, 0.05 xG0–2
- P2 10:56EDMSam GagnerAssists: Mark Fistric, Nail Yakupov · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–2
- P3 0:51EDMTaylor HallAssists: Jordan Eberle, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins · Wrist, 0.17 xG2–2
Shootout
- 1. SJS Michal Handzus scored
- 2. EDM Sam Gagner stopped
- 3. SJS Joe Pavelski stopped
- 4. EDM Ryan Nugent-Hopkins stopped
- 5. SJS Dan Boyle scored
Penalties (8)
- P1 3:03SJSAdam Burish: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P1 17:19EDMNail Yakupov: Cross checking2 min
- P2 12:54EDMJeff Petry: Holding2 min
- P2 16:04SJSScott Gomez: High sticking2 min
- P3 4:24SJSRyane Clowe: Interference2 min
- P3 6:00EDMTeemu Hartikainen: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P3 11:37EDMJeff Petry: Cross checking2 min
- OT 3:45EDMSam Gagner: Hooking2 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 20:00Thornton won the faceoff against Nugent-Hopkins
- 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.
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- bestEberle – Hall – Nugent-Hopkins14:42
xG 0.89–0.44 (67%)attempts 15–11goals 1–0
- Smyth – Belanger – Petrell9:14
xG 0.25–0.03 (89%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
- Hordichuk – Hartikainen – Lander2:27
xG 0.00–0.08 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
- Hemsky – Gagner – Yakupov9:11
xG 0.28–0.61 (31%)attempts 9–8goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestSmid – Petry14:18
xG 0.49–0.21 (70%)attempts 8–11goals 0–1
- Whitney – Fistric10:09
xG 0.26–0.22 (54%)attempts 8–12goals 1–1
- Schultz – Schultz11:54
xG 0.76–0.73 (51%)attempts 18–12goals 1–0
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestGomez – Clowe – Couture5:55
xG 0.44–0.13 (77%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- Thornton – Marleau – Pavelski11:52
xG 0.62–0.45 (58%)attempts 10–9goals 1–0
- Clowe – Sheppard – Couture3:04
xG 0.00–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Burish – Desjardins – Sheppard4:28
xG 0.04–0.17 (20%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBoyle – Irwin13:27
xG 0.93–0.32 (74%)attempts 21–8goals 1–2
- Murray – Braun10:51
xG 0.30–0.20 (60%)attempts 11–8goals 1–0
- Stuart – Vlasic16:07
xG 0.28–0.74 (27%)attempts 9–16goals 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.
SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS is favoured, below it EDM. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 84% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − EDM), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).