Skip to content
Ice Lab

Tue, Apr 23, 2013·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul

Los Angeles Kings 1, Minnesota Wild 2

Expected result

Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 65% of the time.

MIN winsLAK wins

By period

Goals and shots on goal in each period.

TeamP1P2P3Total
LAK0516012123
MIN2130903225

Goals, with shots on goal in grey.

Scoring

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

  1. P1 16:21MINCharlie CoyleAssists: Zach Parise, Tom Gilbert · Snap, 0.15 xG0–1
  2. P1 16:37MINCal ClutterbuckGWGAssists: Devin Setoguchi, Jonas Brodin · Snap, 0.04 xG0–2
  3. P2 19:59LAKJeff CarterAssists: Brad Richardson · Snap, 0.07 xG1–2
Penalties (2)
  1. P1 3:33MINMikko Koivu: Tripping2 min
  2. P1 18:21LAKJordan Nolan: Charging2 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.

LAK00 SOG · 0.0 xG

20:00

P1

0.0 xG · 0 SOG0MIN
43% to win57% to win
← LAK attackMIN attack →
  1. P1 20:00Stoll won the faceoff against Cullen
  • Goal
  • Shot
  • Miss
  • Block
  • Hit
  • Takeaway
  • Giveaway
  • Faceoff
  • Penalty

The numbers

Team totals, side by side.

LAKMIN
23Shots on goal25
1.6Expected goals2.3
46Shot attempts46
24Faceoffs won23
1Power plays1
2Penalty minutes2
17Hits24
5Blocked shots11
2Giveaways9
1Takeaways6

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.

Los Angeles Kings

Forward lines

  1. bestCarter – Richards – Kopitar5:13

    xG 0.63–0.03 (95%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0

  2. Penner – Lewis – King2:30

    xG 0.11–0.03 (77%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0

  3. Carter – Richards – Penner7:04

    xG 0.12–0.09 (57%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0

  4. Williams – Stoll – Brown4:36

    xG 0.09–0.16 (37%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. bestRegehr – Greene3:05

    xG 0.33–0.06 (84%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0

  2. Scuderi – Doughty2:51

    xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–0goals 0–0

  3. Scuderi – Voynov14:55

    xG 0.15–0.15 (50%)attempts 8–6goals 0–1

Minnesota Wild

Forward lines

  1. bestKoivu – Parise – Coyle15:02

    xG 0.76–0.43 (64%)attempts 15–8goals 1–0

  2. Pominville – Bouchard – Brodziak5:29

    xG 0.32–0.01 (97%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0

  3. Bouchard – Brodziak – Mitchell6:46

    xG 0.35–0.19 (64%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0

  4. Konopka – Mitchell – Dowell4:20

    xG 0.04–0.04 (47%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. bestSpurgeon – Brodin3:29

    xG 0.30–0.02 (93%)attempts 5–1goals 1–0

  2. Suter – Spurgeon6:13

    xG 0.21–0.15 (58%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0

  3. Falk – Spurgeon3:33

    xG 0.04–0.06 (37%)attempts 1–2goals 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.

MIN 2.3 xGLAK 1.6 xG
00.511.522.5P1P2P3EndxG

Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute

MINLAK

Win probability

Model-based

How each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.

Win probability

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

Excitement 12/100 · #620 of 720 this seasonSwing 0.84 · 3 goals in reachComeback index 55% (winner's lowest chance)
LAK 100%5050%50MIN 100%P1P2P3EndBiggest swing +20 pts

Did the better team win?

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

Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 65% of the time.

MIN winsLAK wins

Simulated goal difference (MIN − LAK), 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).