Sat, Apr 5, 2014·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Pittsburgh Penguins 0, Minnesota Wild 4
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 66% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 08 | 05 | 07 | 020 |
| MIN | 36 | 110 | 04 | 420 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 1:42MINErik HaulaGWGAssists: Matt Moulson, Jason Pominville · Backhand, 0.07 xG0–1
- P1 8:47MINMikko KoivuAssists: Zach Parise, Charlie Coyle · Wrist, 0.05 xG0–2
- P1 14:56MINStephane VeilleuxAssists: Cody McCormick · Snap, 0.12 xG0–3
- P2 6:24MINCody McCormickAssists: Zach Parise, Charlie Coyle · Snap, 0.14 xG0–4
Penalties (4)
- P1 5:30PITLee Stempniak: Hooking2 min
- P1 15:32MINKyle Brodziak: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:41PITRobert Bortuzzo: Hooking2 min
- P3 9:25MINStephane Veilleux: Interference2 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 20:00Koivu 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestNeal – Sutter – Gibbons6:23
xG 0.09–0.02 (84%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Adams – Pyatt – Glass5:17
xG 0.02–0.03 (45%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Stempniak – Ebbett – Megna3:35
xG 0.00–0.09 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 0–1
- Stempniak – Glass – Ebbett2:10
xG 0.00–0.13 (0%)attempts 0–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Orpik – Martin17:34
xG 0.33–0.40 (46%)attempts 12–8goals 0–2
- Scuderi – Bortuzzo15:33
xG 0.12–0.27 (31%)attempts 7–10goals 0–1
- Niskanen – Despres13:01
xG 0.14–0.35 (28%)attempts 11–8goals 0–1
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestKoivu – Parise – Coyle12:29
xG 0.33–0.18 (64%)attempts 11–8goals 1–0
- Veilleux – McCormick – Niederreiter7:17
xG 0.09–0.04 (69%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- Cooke – Brodziak – Fontaine12:16
xG 0.11–0.13 (46%)attempts 3–10goals 0–0
- Pominville – Moulson – Haula10:53
xG 0.12–0.15 (45%)attempts 4–4goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Spurgeon17:19
xG 0.56–0.11 (83%)attempts 11–12goals 3–0
- Blum – Brodin2:06
xG 0.05–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Blum – Scandella4:26
xG 0.02–0.01 (72%)attempts 2–2goals 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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it PIT. 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 66% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).