Sun, Mar 30, 2014·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Chicago Blackhawks 1, Pittsburgh Penguins 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 50% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 06 | 111 | 09 | 126 |
| PIT | 28 | 011 | 28 | 427 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 9:44PITJames NealAssists: Jussi Jokinen, Robert Bortuzzo · Snap, 0.09 xG0–1
- P1 10:05PITLee StempniakGWGAssists: Matt Niskanen, Chris Kunitz · Wrist, 0.06 xG0–2
- P2 11:10CHISheldon BrookbankAssists: Patrick Sharp, Nick Leddy · Slap, 0.02 xG1–2
- P3 15:09PITSidney CrosbyAssists: Chris Kunitz · Snap, 0.06 xG1–3
- P3 18:44PITSidney CrosbyENAssists: Olli Maatta, Beau Bennett · Wrist, 0.59 xG1–4
Penalties (3)
- P1 19:25PITDeryk Engelland: Slashing2 min
- P2 5:06CHIPatrick Sharp: High sticking2 min
- P2 7:02CHIMarian Hossa: Slashing2 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 20:00Toews won the faceoff against Sutter
- 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.
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestSharp – Shaw – Saad8:37
xG 0.81–0.12 (87%)attempts 12–5goals 1–1
- Smith – Kruger – Bollig9:46
xG 0.54–0.09 (86%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- Hossa – Versteeg – Teravainen6:24
xG 0.28–0.11 (71%)attempts 10–2goals 0–0
- Hossa – Toews – Saad5:16
xG 0.12–0.23 (35%)attempts 7–6goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestBrookbank – Leddy13:55
xG 1.09–0.22 (83%)attempts 21–6goals 1–0
- Oduya – Hjalmarsson15:25
xG 0.44–0.31 (58%)attempts 14–13goals 0–1
- Keith – Seabrook19:27
xG 0.69–0.81 (46%)attempts 23–13goals 0–2
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- Jokinen – Neal – Bennett10:29
xG 0.44–0.47 (48%)attempts 9–10goals 1–0
- Kunitz – Stempniak – Crosby14:50
xG 0.56–0.60 (48%)attempts 11–17goals 2–0
- Pyatt – Sutter – Gibbons9:49
xG 0.16–0.23 (41%)attempts 8–8goals 0–0
- Adams – Glass – Megna7:40
xG 0.02–0.45 (5%)attempts 2–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Scuderi – Engelland18:12
xG 0.65–0.69 (48%)attempts 14–18goals 0–0
- Niskanen – Maatta17:04
xG 0.41–0.47 (47%)attempts 10–17goals 1–0
- Orpik – Bortuzzo15:20
xG 0.32–1.10 (22%)attempts 12–25goals 2–1
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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it CHI. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 50% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).