Mon, Feb 3, 2014·Honda Center, Anaheim
Columbus Blue Jackets 4, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 60% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBJ | 110 | 110 | 213 | 433 |
| ANA | 08 | 013 | 215 | 236 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 11:10CBJRyan JohansenAssists: Nathan Horton, Boone Jenner · Snap, 0.09 xG1–0
- P2 16:43CBJR.J. UmbergerPPAssists: James Wisniewski, Mark Letestu · Deflected, 0.15 xG2–0
- P3 5:45ANAMathieu PerreaultAssists: Patrick Maroon, Teemu Selanne · Tip-in, 0.14 xG2–1
- P3 8:48CBJNick FolignoGWGAssists: R.J. Umberger, Artem Anisimov · Tip-in, 0.11 xG3–1
- P3 13:07CBJNick FolignoPPAssists: Cam Atkinson, Fedor Tyutin · Tip-in, 0.29 xG4–1
- P3 16:41ANARyan GetzlafAssists: Hampus Lindholm, Dustin Penner · Wrist, 0.33 xG4–2
Penalties (7)
- P1 16:21ANAKyle Palmieri: Cross checking2 min
- P2 11:37CBJMatt Calvert: Hooking2 min
- P2 15:20ANABryan Allen: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 19:50CBJArtem Anisimov: Interference2 min
- P3 11:24ANASaku Koivu: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P3 11:24ANAHampus Lindholm: Cross checking2 min
- P3 11:27ANAFrancois Beauchemin: Delaying game puck over glass2 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 20:00Anisimov 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.
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forward lines
- bestHorton – Johansen – Jenner11:37
xG 0.43–0.36 (54%)attempts 10–9goals 1–0
- MacKenzie – Letestu – Tropp5:55
xG 0.28–0.26 (52%)attempts 4–10goals 0–0
- Dubinsky – Calvert – Atkinson10:20
xG 0.13–0.61 (18%)attempts 8–18goals 0–0
- Umberger – Foligno – Anisimov10:34
xG 0.40–1.02 (28%)attempts 9–13goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- Tyutin – Johnson18:03
xG 0.60–0.65 (48%)attempts 18–17goals 1–0
- Wisniewski – Murray14:28
xG 0.25–0.44 (36%)attempts 10–15goals 1–0
- Nikitin – Savard12:59
xG 0.58–1.50 (28%)attempts 12–24goals 0–2
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestSteckel – Winnik – Palmieri9:44
xG 0.67–0.12 (85%)attempts 19–4goals 0–0
- Selanne – Perreault – Maroon7:43
xG 0.30–0.10 (74%)attempts 10–5goals 1–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Penner11:01
xG 0.29–0.31 (48%)attempts 11–11goals 0–2
- Koivu – Cogliano – Silfverberg8:38
xG 0.29–0.34 (46%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLovejoy – Fowler14:22
xG 0.96–0.10 (90%)attempts 27–6goals 1–0
- Beauchemin – Lindholm13:09
xG 1.13–0.38 (75%)attempts 16–11goals 1–1
- Vatanen – Fowler2:12
xG 0.04–0.04 (48%)attempts 1–2goals 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 CBJ. 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 60% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − CBJ), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).