Fri, Apr 5, 2013·HP Pavilion at San Jose, San Jose
Calgary Flames 1, San Jose Sharks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 77% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGY | 110 | 08 | 06 | 124 |
| SJS | 017 | 08 | 216 | 241 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 17:55CGYMikael BacklundPPAssists: Michael Cammalleri · Wrist, 0.04 xG1–0
- P3 2:40SJSDan BoyleAssists: Logan Couture, Matt Tennyson · Wrist, 0.10 xG1–1
- P3 17:54SJSJoe PavelskiGWGAssists: Brent Burns, TJ Galiardi · Wrist, 0.17 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 10:28CGYTJ Brodie: Slashing2 min
- P1 17:49SJSLogan Couture: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P2 3:16CGYMikael Backlund: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P2 14:12SJSMatt Irwin: Tripping2 min
- P3 0:17CGYAlex Tanguay: Hooking2 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 20:00Thornton won the faceoff against Horak
- 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.
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestGlencross – Backlund – Cervenka10:23
xG 0.20–0.11 (64%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
- Cammalleri – Hudler – Horak12:44
xG 0.13–0.34 (28%)attempts 4–14goals 0–0
- Begin – McGrattan – Jackman8:49
xG 0.19–0.42 (32%)attempts 9–15goals 0–0
- Tanguay – Stajan – Stempniak9:51
xG 0.13–0.42 (24%)attempts 7–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Wideman – Brodie4:35
xG 0.06–0.02 (70%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Carson – Brodie3:52
xG 0.03–0.03 (53%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
- Sarich – Butler3:21
xG 0.02–0.04 (39%)attempts 1–6goals 0–0
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestPavelski – Sheppard – Galiardi4:24
xG 0.23–0.06 (81%)attempts 11–1goals 0–0
- Marleau – Couture – Wingels11:50
xG 0.29–0.13 (69%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Havlat – Pavelski – Sheppard4:03
xG 0.11–0.07 (62%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Gomez – Burish – Desjardins8:37
xG 0.18–0.17 (50%)attempts 10–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBoyle – Irwin8:23
xG 0.27–0.04 (87%)attempts 14–3goals 0–0
- Stuart – Braun4:33
xG 0.23–0.06 (79%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Vlasic – Braun6:45
xG 0.11–0.10 (53%)attempts 6–9goals 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.
SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS is favoured, below it CGY. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 77% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − CGY), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).