Wed, Dec 11, 2013·Honda Center, Anaheim
Minnesota Wild 1, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 50% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 010 | 07 | 17 | 124 |
| ANA | 011 | 214 | 06 | 231 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 2:37ANAAlex GrantAssists: Andrew Cogliano, Daniel Winnik · Wrist, 0.04 xG0–1
- P2 13:27ANACorey PerryGWGAssists: Hampus Lindholm, Ryan Getzlaf · Tip-in, 0.12 xG0–2
- P3 3:48MINJason PominvillePPAssists: Ryan Suter, Mikko Koivu · Backhand, 0.31 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 8:03MINMatt Cooke: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P1 8:03ANARyan Getzlaf: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P1 19:27MINJonas Brodin: Holding2 min
- P2 3:05MINJonas Brodin: Holding the stick2 min
- P3 3:00ANABen Lovejoy: Boarding2 min · PPG
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 20:00Brodziak won the faceoff against Getzlaf
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- Cooke – Brodziak – Mitchell11:24
xG 0.34–0.31 (52%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Koivu – Pominville – Parise15:43
xG 0.32–0.30 (51%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
- Zucker – Coyle – Niederreiter8:17
xG 0.41–0.43 (49%)attempts 6–10goals 0–1
- Zucker – Coyle – Fontaine3:08
xG 0.00–0.07 (0%)attempts 0–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Brodin20:43
xG 0.62–0.56 (53%)attempts 14–16goals 0–1
- Ballard – Stoner9:31
xG 0.34–0.36 (49%)attempts 7–7goals 0–1
- Scandella – Spurgeon15:08
xG 0.35–0.38 (48%)attempts 10–11goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Perry – Penner13:12
xG 0.89–0.36 (71%)attempts 15–6goals 1–0
- Steckel – Jackman – Beleskey8:21
xG 0.18–0.23 (44%)attempts 7–4goals 0–0
- Koivu – Winnik – Cogliano11:06
xG 0.11–0.24 (31%)attempts 6–9goals 1–0
- Selanne – Bonino – Palmieri10:43
xG 0.26–0.44 (38%)attempts 9–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestGrant – Lindholm13:13
xG 0.78–0.55 (59%)attempts 16–11goals 1–0
- Lovejoy – Fowler17:24
xG 0.34–0.24 (59%)attempts 10–9goals 0–0
- Allen – Vatanen17:13
xG 0.39–0.54 (42%)attempts 11–13goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it MIN. 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 50% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).