Sat, Mar 16, 2013·Tampa Bay Times Forum, Tampa
Carolina Hurricanes 1, Tampa Bay Lightning 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 55% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAR | 08 | 010 | 14 | 122 |
| TBL | 110 | 28 | 18 | 426 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 10:54TBLTyler JohnsonAssists: Alex Killorn, Cory Conacher · Wrist, 0.08 xG0–1
- P2 6:35TBLOndrej PalatGWGAssists: Sami Salo, Tyler Johnson · Tip-in, 0.09 xG0–2
- P2 12:55TBLNate ThompsonAssists: B.J. Crombeen, Matt Carle · Wrist, 0.13 xG0–3
- P3 3:54TBLTeddy PurcellAssists: Martin St. Louis, Victor Hedman · Backhand, 0.09 xG0–4
- P3 6:21CAREric StaalAssists: Alexander Semin · Wrist, 0.11 xG1–4
Penalties (3)
- P1 8:45CARJoe Corvo: Tripping2 min
- P3 11:25TBLSteven Stamkos: Roughing2 min
- P3 14:29TBLOndrej Palat: Too many men on the ice2 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 20:00Stamkos won the faceoff against Staal
- 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.
Carolina Hurricanes
Forward lines
- bestDwyer – Staal – Skinner14:37
xG 0.66–0.35 (66%)attempts 17–11goals 0–0
- Semin – Staal – Tlusty14:12
xG 0.28–0.14 (67%)attempts 16–6goals 0–0
- Hall – Brent – Bowman2:27
xG 0.01–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Jokinen – Wallace – Nash2:08
xG 0.00–0.04 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHarrison – Faulk14:27
xG 0.42–0.16 (73%)attempts 13–9goals 0–0
- Harrison – McBain2:46
xG 0.34–0.15 (70%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Corvo – Gleason8:44
xG 0.22–0.17 (56%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- Tyrell – Johnson – Palat6:34
xG 0.27–0.24 (53%)attempts 10–4goals 1–0
- Pyatt – Killorn – Conacher10:10
xG 0.24–0.24 (50%)attempts 11–12goals 0–0
- Malone – Crombeen – Thompson13:12
xG 0.25–0.28 (48%)attempts 5–14goals 1–0
- St. Louis – Purcell – Stamkos12:34
xG 0.28–0.81 (26%)attempts 5–19goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestSalo – Hedman15:12
xG 0.43–0.20 (68%)attempts 10–11goals 2–0
- Aulie – Gudas7:00
xG 0.30–0.29 (50%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Carle – Gudas7:22
xG 0.23–0.23 (50%)attempts 9–5goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it CAR. 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 55% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − CAR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).