Tue, Jan 21, 2014·Honda Center, Anaheim
Winnipeg Jets 3, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 83% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WPG | 27 | 16 | 08 | 321 |
| ANA | 115 | 011 | 116 | 242 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:59ANACam FowlerPPAssists: Ryan Getzlaf, Matt Beleskey · Slap, 0.14 xG0–1
- P1 5:19WPGBlake WheelerAssists: Evander Kane, Mark Scheifele · Wrist, 0.04 xG1–1
- P1 18:36WPGAndrew LaddAssists: Bryan Little, Jacob Trouba · Tip-in, 0.27 xG2–1
- P2 15:43WPGEvander KaneSHGWGAssists: Bryan Little · Snap, 0.06 xG3–1
- P3 10:18ANANick BoninoAssists: Jakob Silfverberg · Wrist, 0.26 xG3–2
Penalties (6)
- P1 2:07WPGJacob Trouba: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P1 9:13ANASaku Koivu: Tripping2 min
- P2 11:46WPGMark Stuart: Holding2 min
- P2 13:55WPGAdam Pardy: Interference2 min
- P3 12:26WPGMark Stuart: Delaying game2 min
- P3 19:58ANACorey Perry: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 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 Little
- 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.
Winnipeg Jets
Forward lines
- bestLadd – Little – Frolik13:21
xG 0.80–0.64 (55%)attempts 16–19goals 1–0
- Wheeler – Kane – Scheifele14:39
xG 0.49–0.74 (40%)attempts 9–21goals 1–0
- Thorburn – Peluso – O'Dell3:34
xG 0.02–0.59 (4%)attempts 1–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestStuart – Trouba11:36
xG 0.68–0.34 (67%)attempts 14–12goals 2–0
- Pardy – Ellerby3:45
xG 0.09–0.56 (13%)attempts 2–6goals 0–1
- Enstrom – Bogosian15:41
xG 0.57–1.06 (35%)attempts 11–28goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestSelanne – Perreault – Maroon7:57
xG 0.79–0.09 (90%)attempts 17–3goals 0–0
- Beleskey – Bonino – Silfverberg2:24
xG 0.47–0.03 (95%)attempts 4–1goals 1–0
- Koivu – Cogliano – Palmieri3:15
xG 0.45–0.02 (96%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
- Bonino – Palmieri – Silfverberg5:34
xG 0.53–0.19 (73%)attempts 14–3goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestAllen – Fistric14:13
xG 1.43–0.17 (89%)attempts 28–7goals 1–0
- Beauchemin – Lindholm19:38
xG 1.42–0.56 (72%)attempts 30–11goals 0–0
- Lovejoy – Fowler13:22
xG 0.17–0.98 (14%)attempts 14–17goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it WPG. 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 83% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − WPG), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).