Sat, Feb 2, 2013·Tampa Bay Times Forum, Tampa
New York Rangers 3, Tampa Bay Lightning 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, New York Rangers win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NYR | 011 | 115 | 24 | 330 |
| TBL | 08 | 19 | 115 | 232 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 4:22TBLSteven StamkosPPAssists: Matt Carle, Martin St. Louis · Wrist, 0.06 xG0–1
- P2 9:50NYRDerek StepanAssists: Taylor Pyatt, Carl Hagelin · Backhand, 0.26 xG1–1
- P3 3:04NYRRick NashAssists: Brad Richards, Marc Staal · Wrist, 0.14 xG2–1
- P3 14:47NYRCarl HagelinGWGAssists: Taylor Pyatt · Tip-in, 0.09 xG3–1
- P3 19:39TBLSteven StamkosAssists: Matt Carle, Ryan Malone · Slap, 0.03 xG3–2
Penalties (3)
- P2 3:16NYRStu Bickel: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P2 7:42TBLSteven Stamkos: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:14TBLEric Brewer: Interference2 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 20:00Richards won the faceoff against Thompson
- 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.
New York Rangers
Forward lines
- bestPyatt – Hagelin – Stepan15:35
xG 0.93–0.40 (70%)attempts 17–12goals 2–0
- Richards – Gaborik – Nash17:39
xG 0.58–0.68 (46%)attempts 17–19goals 1–0
- Asham – Halpern – Boyle11:27
xG 0.15–0.40 (27%)attempts 9–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestStralman – Gilroy5:39
xG 0.49–0.16 (75%)attempts 14–3goals 0–0
- Staal – Del Zotto16:33
xG 0.52–0.40 (56%)attempts 15–15goals 1–0
- McDonagh – Del Zotto2:18
xG 0.02–0.06 (24%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestLecavalier – Purcell – Conacher2:14
xG 0.23–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Pouliot – Pyatt – Tyrell4:18
xG 0.24–0.06 (79%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- St. Louis – Malone – Stamkos3:07
xG 0.02–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Lecavalier – Malone – Conacher8:51
xG 0.25–0.33 (42%)attempts 8–7goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestLee – Aulie7:18
xG 0.25–0.00 (98%)attempts 9–4goals 0–0
- Lee – Hedman2:29
xG 0.19–0.14 (57%)attempts 4–1goals 0–1
- Carle – Lee2:33
xG 0.02–0.10 (18%)attempts 1–3goals 0–1
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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it NYR. 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, New York Rangers win this game 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − NYR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).