Thu, Mar 21, 2013·Jobing.com Arena, Glendale
Vancouver Canucks 2, Phoenix Coyotes 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Phoenix Coyotes win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 18 | 09 | 115 | 232 |
| PHX | 05 | 014 | 115 | 134 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:32VANChris TanevAssists: Mason Raymond · Wrist, 0.04 xG1–0
- P3 2:26PHXAntoine VermettePPAssists: Radim Vrbata, Oliver Ekman-Larsson · Wrist, 0.41 xG1–1
- P3 9:53VANJordan SchroederGWGAssists: Jannik Hansen, Alexander Edler · Wrist, 0.29 xG2–1
Penalties (9)
- P2 13:40VANKevin Bieksa: Hooking2 min
- P2 14:20PHXAntoine Vermette: Tripping2 min
- P2 16:21PHXLauri Korpikoski: Holding2 min
- P2 18:17VANAlexander Edler: Charging5 min · PPG
- P2 18:17PHXMartin Hanzal: Roughing2 min
- P2 19:25PHXShane Doan: Hooking2 min
- P3 5:25VANTom Sestito: Roughing2 min
- P3 5:25PHXDerek Morris: Roughing2 min
- P3 12:07VANCam Barker: 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 20:00Schroeder won the faceoff against Vermette
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestLapierre – Gordon – Sestito6:53
xG 0.36–0.14 (72%)attempts 5–6goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Burrows8:41
xG 0.05–0.12 (27%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
- Hansen – Raymond – Schroeder10:13
xG 0.71–1.02 (41%)attempts 12–18goals 2–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Edler13:28
xG 0.79–0.09 (89%)attempts 14–6goals 1–0
- Barker – Tanev4:55
xG 0.17–0.05 (77%)attempts 3–3goals 1–0
- Hamhuis – Garrison12:20
xG 0.21–1.17 (15%)attempts 4–23goals 0–0
Phoenix Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestDoan – Vermette – Boedker12:26
xG 0.81–0.41 (66%)attempts 14–8goals 0–0
- Sullivan – Vrbata – Hanzal11:04
xG 0.60–0.37 (62%)attempts 8–8goals 0–0
- Torres – Lombardi – Chipchura6:43
xG 0.05–0.08 (40%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Gordon – Korpikoski – Klinkhammer4:21
xG 0.19–0.36 (35%)attempts 8–7goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestSchlemko – Ekman-Larsson15:31
xG 0.73–0.19 (79%)attempts 16–5goals 0–0
- Klesla – Stone11:06
xG 0.25–0.18 (58%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Yandle – Stone2:32
xG 0.26–0.26 (50%)attempts 3–4goals 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.
PHX's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHX is favoured, below it VAN. 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, Phoenix Coyotes win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHX − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).