Mon, Apr 8, 2013·Honda Center, Anaheim
Edmonton Oilers 1, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 70% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDM | 011 | 03 | 114 | 128 |
| ANA | 115 | 013 | 110 | 238 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 17:21ANARadek DvorakAssists: Ben Lovejoy, Saku Koivu · Slap, 0.40 xG0–1
- P3 1:12EDMNick SchultzAssists: Nail Yakupov, Sam Gagner · Slap, 0.02 xG1–1
- P3 7:48ANARadek DvorakGWGAssists: Daniel Winnik, Saku Koivu · Wrist, 0.20 xG1–2
Penalties (8)
- P1 8:08ANAMatt Beleskey: Boarding2 min
- P1 8:11EDMJordan Eberle: Interference2 min
- P1 17:58EDMRyan Nugent-Hopkins: Interference2 min
- P1 0:00EDMLadislav Smid: Roughing2 min
- P2 9:25EDMMark Fistric: Tripping2 min
- P2 15:24ANALuca Sbisa: Hooking2 min
- P2 17:15EDMRyan Nugent-Hopkins: Tripping2 min
- P3 11:48ANAAndrew Cogliano: Tripping2 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 20:00Koivu won the faceoff against Gagner
- 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.
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- bestEberle – Hall – Nugent-Hopkins14:50
xG 1.09–0.31 (78%)attempts 18–8goals 0–0
- Smithson – Brown – Petrell3:37
xG 0.10–0.02 (81%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
- Gagner – Paajarvi – Yakupov12:28
xG 0.50–0.91 (35%)attempts 10–18goals 1–1
- Smyth – Horcoff – Jones8:51
xG 0.09–0.55 (14%)attempts 3–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWhitney – Fistric10:52
xG 0.58–0.19 (76%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
- Schultz – Schultz13:26
xG 0.65–0.45 (59%)attempts 10–12goals 1–1
- Whitney – Schultz2:19
xG 0.01–0.29 (3%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKoivu – Dvorak – Winnik12:40
xG 1.20–0.45 (73%)attempts 18–10goals 2–0
- Dvorak – Winnik – Cogliano2:08
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Selanne – Cogliano – Beleskey6:57
xG 0.03–0.11 (23%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Steckel – Palmieri – Etem7:18
xG 0.31–0.42 (43%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLovejoy – Fowler10:28
xG 1.06–0.46 (70%)attempts 14–11goals 1–1
- Lydman – Sbisa14:46
xG 0.52–0.37 (58%)attempts 12–9goals 0–0
- Allen – Beauchemin14:48
xG 0.61–1.02 (38%)attempts 16–15goals 1–0
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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it EDM. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 70% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − EDM), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).