Thu, Apr 10, 2014·Bridgestone Arena, Nashville
Phoenix Coyotes 0, Nashville Predators 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 61% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHX | 09 | 05 | 015 | 029 |
| NSH | 06 | 110 | 17 | 223 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 10:26NSHCraig SmithPPGWGAssists: Ryan Ellis, Seth Jones · Snap, 0.05 xG0–1
- P3 9:21NSHPatric HornqvistAssists: Mike Fisher, Matt Cullen · Wrist, 0.36 xG0–2
Penalties (4)
- P1 17:15NSHNick Spaling: Hooking2 min
- P2 2:19PHXJeff Halpern: Tripping2 min
- P2 8:37PHXRob Klinkhammer: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P3 15:20NSHMattias Ekholm: Holding2 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 20:00Halpern won the faceoff against Wilson
- 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.
Phoenix Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestErat – Moss – Chipchura3:23
xG 0.12–0.02 (88%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
- Erat – Vrbata – Chipchura6:19
xG 0.09–0.00 (100%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
- Halpern – Korpikoski – Klinkhammer5:16
xG 0.08–0.01 (89%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Ribeiro – Erat – Vrbata2:25
xG 0.02–0.01 (55%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMorris – Yandle9:01
xG 0.27–0.19 (58%)attempts 16–6goals 0–0
- Yandle – Stone11:48
xG 0.41–0.38 (52%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- Michalek – Ekman-Larsson11:34
xG 0.08–0.29 (21%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestCullen – Fisher – Hornqvist13:48
xG 0.85–0.35 (71%)attempts 10–14goals 1–0
- Smith – Bourque – Jarnkrok9:57
xG 0.71–0.26 (73%)attempts 12–11goals 0–0
- Gaustad – Smith – Bourque4:19
xG 0.37–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
- Nystrom – Clune – Jarnkrok2:24
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWeber – Josi18:39
xG 1.45–0.42 (77%)attempts 15–19goals 1–0
- Ellis – Ekholm18:14
xG 0.46–0.20 (70%)attempts 12–16goals 0–0
- Bartley – Jones10:54
xG 0.07–0.31 (18%)attempts 5–12goals 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.
NSH's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line NSH is favoured, below it PHX. 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 61% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NSH − PHX), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).