Wed, Mar 19, 2014·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
Nashville Predators 0, Vancouver Canucks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 55% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSH | 014 | 09 | 07 | 030 |
| VAN | 07 | 011 | 24 | 222 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 6:06VANNicklas JensenGWGAssists: Henrik Sedin, Dan Hamhuis · Wrist, 0.05 xG0–1
- P3 7:19VANAlexander EdlerPPAssists: Kevin Bieksa, Henrik Sedin · Slap, 0.02 xG0–2
Penalties (5)
- P2 4:18VANAlexander Edler: Slashing2 min
- P2 15:22VANDavid Booth: Hooking2 min
- P3 7:14NSHVictor Bartley: Interference2 min · PPG
- P3 11:07VANShawn Matthias: Hooking2 min
- P3 14:48VANChris Higgins: High sticking2 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
- Press play, or drag along the timeline.
- 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.
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestFisher – Stalberg – Spaling8:03
xG 0.24–0.08 (75%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
- Nystrom – Wilson – Smith11:16
xG 0.17–0.10 (64%)attempts 7–4goals 0–0
- Cullen – Hornqvist – Bourque7:58
xG 0.37–0.43 (46%)attempts 10–7goals 0–0
- Gaustad – Eaves – Sissons3:10
xG 0.03–0.23 (10%)attempts 1–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEllis – Ekholm14:18
xG 0.44–0.04 (92%)attempts 14–8goals 0–0
- Weber – Josi17:30
xG 0.57–0.26 (69%)attempts 12–10goals 0–1
- Bartley – Jones12:04
xG 0.31–0.48 (39%)attempts 10–14goals 0–0
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestRichardson – Booth – Kassian11:27
xG 0.64–0.22 (74%)attempts 16–7goals 0–0
- Sedin – Burrows – Jensen9:08
xG 0.37–0.53 (41%)attempts 8–11goals 1–0
- Higgins – Hansen – Matthias12:40
xG 0.13–0.30 (30%)attempts 7–9goals 0–0
- Sestito – Dalpe – Schroeder5:26
xG 0.01–0.25 (5%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Bieksa – Edler18:06
xG 0.41–0.44 (48%)attempts 17–11goals 0–0
- Weber – Stanton11:42
xG 0.38–0.41 (48%)attempts 13–9goals 0–0
- Hamhuis – Garrison17:37
xG 0.26–0.53 (33%)attempts 7–17goals 1–0
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 NSH. 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, Nashville Predators win this game 55% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − NSH), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).