Wed, Feb 26, 2014·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
St. Louis Blues 0, Vancouver Canucks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vancouver Canucks win this game 75% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STL | 06 | 011 | 03 | 020 |
| VAN | 014 | 014 | 17 | 135 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 11:13VANJannik HansenGWGAssists: Tom Sestito · Wrist, 0.16 xG0–1
Penalties (7)
- P1 2:57STLChris Stewart: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P1 18:34STLBrenden Morrow: Hooking2 min
- P2 0:52STLAlexander Steen: Hooking2 min
- P2 6:23VANJason Garrison: Cross checking2 min
- P2 17:13VANHenrik Sedin: High sticking2 min
- P3 3:02VANTom Sestito: Slashing2 min
- P3 12:39STLAlexander Steen: 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 20:00Richardson won the faceoff against Backes
- 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
- Morrow – Roy – Tarasenko8:50
xG 0.16–0.24 (41%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0
- Lapierre – Reaves – Jaskin7:49
xG 0.04–0.32 (11%)attempts 2–7goals 0–0
- Steen – Stewart – Schwartz9:21
xG 0.20–0.55 (27%)attempts 9–12goals 0–0
- Backes – Oshie – Berglund8:18
xG 0.47–0.91 (34%)attempts 13–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestJackman – Shattenkirk12:36
xG 0.46–0.24 (66%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- Bouwmeester – Pietrangelo15:16
xG 0.57–0.87 (39%)attempts 16–19goals 0–0
- Colaiacovo – Polak11:27
xG 0.06–0.50 (11%)attempts 2–9goals 0–1
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestRichardson – Booth – Kassian10:42
xG 1.19–0.43 (73%)attempts 15–12goals 0–0
- Sestito – Dalpe – Lain6:32
xG 0.33–0.08 (79%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Burrows11:02
xG 0.40–0.27 (60%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
- Higgins – Hansen – Schroeder10:18
xG 0.03–0.25 (12%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Stanton12:39
xG 1.55–0.32 (83%)attempts 18–12goals 1–0
- Edler – Diaz8:13
xG 0.28–0.07 (80%)attempts 7–4goals 0–0
- Stanton – Diaz2:07
xG 0.09–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 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.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN 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, Vancouver Canucks win this game 75% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − STL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).