Tue, Dec 31, 2013·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
St. Louis Blues 2, Minnesota Wild 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, St. Louis Blues win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STL | 07 | 29 | 07 | 223 |
| MIN | 09 | 05 | 111 | 125 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 6:49STLT.J. OshieAssists: Jaden Schwartz · Wrist, 0.15 xG1–0
- P2 15:59STLJaden SchwartzGWGAssists: Vladimir Tarasenko, Brian Elliott · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–0
- P3 19:51MINRyan SuterAssists: Charlie Coyle, Mikko Koivu · Slap, 0.03 xG2–1
Penalties (4)
- P2 0:24MINJonas Brodin: High sticking2 min
- P2 18:04STLBarret Jackman: Boarding2 min
- P3 2:23STLMaxim Lapierre: Holding the stick2 min
- P3 11:22STLPatrik Berglund: Cross checking2 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 20:00Sobotka won the faceoff against Brodziak
- 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.
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestOshie – Sobotka – Schwartz12:48
xG 0.60–0.21 (74%)attempts 18–12goals 1–0
- Morrow – Roy – Porter3:42
xG 0.15–0.04 (78%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Morrow – Lapierre – Porter5:35
xG 0.04–0.05 (47%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
- Berglund – Paajarvi – Tarasenko10:33
xG 0.27–0.41 (40%)attempts 9–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestColaiacovo – Cole13:48
xG 0.61–0.15 (80%)attempts 17–14goals 0–0
- Jackman – Shattenkirk14:49
xG 0.35–0.16 (68%)attempts 11–10goals 1–0
- Bouwmeester – Pietrangelo15:37
xG 0.37–0.51 (42%)attempts 12–21goals 1–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestKoivu – Coyle – Niederreiter12:55
xG 0.35–0.17 (68%)attempts 16–9goals 0–1
- Cooke – Brodziak – Mitchell3:04
xG 0.03–0.03 (49%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Rupp – Veilleux – Mitchell3:03
xG 0.00–0.01 (0%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Heatley – Pominville – Granlund12:34
xG 0.27–0.50 (35%)attempts 13–14goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Ballard – Suter2:21
xG 0.06–0.03 (66%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Suter – Spurgeon22:27
xG 0.44–0.44 (50%)attempts 27–18goals 0–0
- Ballard – Prosser5:33
xG 0.17–0.18 (49%)attempts 7–3goals 0–1
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it STL. 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, St. Louis Blues win this game 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − STL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).