Fri, Feb 1, 2013·Honda Center, Anaheim
Minnesota Wild 1, Anaheim Ducks 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 68% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 16 | 08 | 013 | 127 |
| ANA | 013 | 19 | 29 | 331 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 9:44MINMarco ScandellaAssists: Matt Cullen · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–0
- P2 6:49ANAKyle PalmieriAssists: Bobby Ryan, Teemu Selanne · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–1
- P3 4:21ANAKyle PalmieriGWGAssists: Teemu Selanne, Bobby Ryan · Tip-in, 0.11 xG1–2
- P3 18:26ANABobby RyanPPAssists: Teemu Selanne, Ryan Getzlaf · Slap, 0.27 xG1–3
Penalties (3)
- P1 7:29MINPierre-Marc Bouchard: High sticking2 min
- P3 14:24ANACam Fowler: Holding2 min
- P3 16:40MINTom Gilbert: Tripping2 min · PPG
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 20:00Koivu won the faceoff against Koivu
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- Bouchard – Brodziak – Clutterbuck8:39
xG 0.30–0.36 (46%)attempts 11–8goals 0–1
- Konopka – Mitchell – Powe9:12
xG 0.34–0.47 (42%)attempts 10–8goals 0–0
- Heatley – Koivu – Parise17:17
xG 0.11–0.32 (27%)attempts 7–17goals 0–1
- Cullen – Setoguchi – Granlund11:49
xG 0.19–0.55 (25%)attempts 6–18goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Gilbert – Stoner16:18
xG 0.28–0.39 (42%)attempts 11–15goals 0–1
- Suter – Brodin18:17
xG 0.25–0.44 (37%)attempts 10–19goals 0–1
- Falk – Scandella12:20
xG 0.44–0.70 (38%)attempts 14–16goals 1–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKoivu – Winnik – Cogliano14:00
xG 0.40–0.05 (88%)attempts 14–4goals 0–0
- Selanne – Ryan – Palmieri11:16
xG 0.53–0.29 (65%)attempts 12–13goals 2–0
- Bonino – Smith-Pelly – Etem7:25
xG 0.45–0.31 (59%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Beleskey13:05
xG 0.35–0.22 (61%)attempts 13–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSouray – Beauchemin20:19
xG 0.72–0.23 (75%)attempts 22–13goals 1–1
- Sbisa – Vatanen10:30
xG 0.50–0.20 (71%)attempts 13–7goals 1–0
- Allen – Fowler20:00
xG 0.62–0.50 (55%)attempts 21–15goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 68% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).