Wed, Feb 5, 2014·SAP Center at San Jose, San Jose
Dallas Stars 1, San Jose Sharks 2 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 68% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAL | 06 | 08 | 16 | 00 | 120 |
| SJS | 09 | 18 | 02 | 12 | 221 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 18:06SJSMartin HavlatAssists: Scott Hannan, James Sheppard · Deflected, 0.05 xG0–1
- P3 6:27DALValeri NichushkinAssists: Trevor Daley, Tyler Seguin · Wrist, 0.08 xG1–1
- OT 1:52SJSTommy WingelsGWGAssists: Martin Havlat, Scott Hannan · Slap, 0.17 xG1–2
Penalties (4)
- P1 18:34SJSScott Hannan: Hooking2 min
- P2 5:10DALRich Peverley: Holding2 min
- P3 12:12DALErik Cole: Slashing2 min
- P3 16:13DALErik Cole: Tripping2 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 20:00Desjardins won the faceoff against Fiddler
- 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.
Dallas Stars
Forward lines
- bestPeverley – Benn – Seguin5:12
xG 0.15–0.00 (99%)attempts 8–2goals 0–0
- Cole – Eakin – Nichushkin5:39
xG 0.19–0.07 (72%)attempts 4–4goals 0–1
- Whitney – Horcoff – Chiasson9:24
xG 0.12–0.10 (56%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Benn – Seguin – Nichushkin8:24
xG 0.37–0.49 (43%)attempts 8–8goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- Gonchar – Connauton12:40
xG 0.24–0.36 (40%)attempts 5–11goals 0–1
- Benn – Dillon17:54
xG 0.39–0.65 (38%)attempts 13–17goals 0–0
- Daley – Goligoski17:50
xG 0.46–0.90 (34%)attempts 17–20goals 1–0
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestPavelski – Wingels – Nieto8:26
xG 0.37–0.03 (92%)attempts 9–4goals 0–0
- Burish – Brown – Desjardins7:54
xG 0.41–0.14 (75%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Havlat – Pavelski – Wingels4:21
xG 0.08–0.04 (69%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Havlat – Kearns – Sheppard6:14
xG 0.09–0.18 (32%)attempts 6–4goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestHannan – Irwin13:55
xG 0.54–0.04 (93%)attempts 11–6goals 1–0
- Boyle – Vlasic14:12
xG 0.44–0.28 (61%)attempts 18–11goals 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.
SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS is favoured, below it DAL. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 68% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − DAL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).