Skip to content
Ice Lab

Sun, Mar 17, 2013·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh

Boston Bruins 1, Pittsburgh Penguins 2

Expected result

Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 53% of the time.

PIT winsBOS wins

By period

Goals and shots on goal in each period.

TeamP1P2P3Total
BOS11109012132
PIT2100503218

Goals, with shots on goal in grey.

Scoring

Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.

  1. P1 12:06PITSidney CrosbyAssists: Chris Kunitz, Pascal Dupuis · Wrist, 0.13 xG0–1
  2. P1 16:38BOSTyler SeguinAssists: Patrice Bergeron, Johnny Boychuk · Snap, 0.09 xG1–1
  3. P1 19:28PITJoe VitaleGWGAssists: Craig Adams, Brooks Orpik · Wrist, 0.23 xG1–2
Penalties (3)
  1. P1 4:13PITBrooks Orpik: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
  2. P2 14:18PITSidney Crosby: High sticking2 min
  3. P2 17:18BOSPatrice Bergeron: Delaying game face off violation2 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.

BOS00 SOG · 0.0 xG

20:00

P1

0.0 xG · 0 SOG0PIT
43% to win57% to win
← BOS attackPIT attack →
  1. P1 20:00Crosby won the faceoff against Bergeron
  • Goal
  • Shot
  • Miss
  • Block
  • Hit
  • Takeaway
  • Giveaway
  • Faceoff
  • Penalty

The numbers

Team totals, side by side.

BOSPIT
32Shots on goal18
1.7Expected goals1.8
65Shot attempts40
26Faceoffs won23
2Power plays1
2Penalty minutes4
26Hits30
9Blocked shots17
1Giveaways3
1Takeaways8

Line combinations that worked

Model-based

Each team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.

Boston Bruins

Forward lines

  1. bestHorton – Krejci – Lucic11:36

    xG 0.74–0.25 (75%)attempts 17–5goals 0–0

  2. Bergeron – Marchand – Seguin15:01

    xG 0.52–0.27 (66%)attempts 18–9goals 1–0

  3. Pandolfo – Peverley – Caron7:36

    xG 0.11–0.08 (57%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0

  4. Thornton – Campbell – Paille7:33

    xG 0.06–0.50 (11%)attempts 6–10goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. bestSeidenberg – Hamilton11:57

    xG 0.48–0.04 (93%)attempts 16–3goals 0–0

  2. Chara – Boychuk15:02

    xG 0.60–0.35 (63%)attempts 20–9goals 1–0

  3. Chara – Ference2:14

    xG 0.02–0.04 (31%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0

Pittsburgh Penguins

Forward lines

  1. bestDupuis – Kunitz – Crosby16:27

    xG 1.04–0.47 (69%)attempts 17–18goals 1–0

  2. Adams – Glass – Vitale4:57

    xG 0.33–0.06 (85%)attempts 6–6goals 1–0

  3. Neal – Jeffrey – Bennett9:40

    xG 0.06–0.24 (19%)attempts 6–13goals 0–0

  4. Cooke – Kennedy – Sutter12:42

    xG 0.22–0.45 (33%)attempts 6–13goals 0–1

Defence pairs

  1. bestEngelland – Niskanen6:37

    xG 0.40–0.01 (97%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0

  2. Orpik – Martin13:53

    xG 0.68–0.51 (57%)attempts 9–13goals 2–0

  3. Eaton – Orpik2:20

    xG 0.19–0.08 (70%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0

How the game flowed

Model-based

Chance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.

Expected goals flow

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.

PIT 1.8 xGBOS 1.7 xG
00.511.52P1P2P3EndxG

Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute

PITBOS

Win probability

Model-based

How each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.

Win probability

PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it BOS. Dots are goals.

Excitement 20/100 · #565 of 720 this seasonSwing 1.06 · 3 goals in reachComeback index 55% (winner's lowest chance)
BOS 100%5050%50PIT 100%P1P2P3EndBiggest swing +21 pts

Did the better team win?

Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.

Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 53% of the time.

PIT winsBOS wins

Simulated goal difference (PIT − BOS), 10,000 replays

-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7

The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).