Fri, Oct 17, 2014·Honda Center, Anaheim
Minnesota Wild 1, Anaheim Ducks 2
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 70% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 09 | 17 | 012 | 128 |
| ANA | 09 | 08 | 29 | 226 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 2:08MINJason ZuckerAssists: Ryan Carter, Keith Ballard · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–0
- P3 4:02ANAAndrew CoglianoSHAssists: Devante Smith-Pelly, Cam Fowler · Backhand, 0.09 xG1–1
- P3 11:35ANACorey PerryGWGAssists: Nate Thompson · Wrist, 0.16 xG1–2
Penalties (12)
- P1 2:20MINCharlie Coyle: Holding the stick2 min
- P1 15:49MINMathew Dumba: Hooking2 min
- P1 17:48ANATim Jackman: Interference2 min
- P2 7:04MINCharlie Coyle: Roughing2 min
- P2 7:04ANARyan Getzlaf: Roughing2 min
- P2 7:04MINCharlie Coyle: Charging2 min
- P2 12:42MINKeith Ballard: Tripping2 min
- P3 2:05ANAClayton Stoner: Roughing2 min
- P3 8:03ANAChris Wagner: Hooking2 min
- P3 0:00ANARyan Kesler: Charging5 min
- P3 0:00MINZach Parise: Cross checking5 min
- P3 0:00MINZach Parise: Game misconduct10 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 20:00Granlund won the faceoff against Karlsson
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestHaula – Coyle – Niederreiter9:52
xG 0.69–0.27 (72%)attempts 14–8goals 0–0
- Pominville – Parise – Granlund12:18
xG 0.27–0.25 (52%)attempts 10–9goals 0–0
- Koivu – Vanek – Fontaine12:45
xG 0.26–0.33 (43%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
- Cooke – Carter – Zucker4:33
xG 0.03–0.28 (11%)attempts 1–4goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Brodin16:41
xG 0.47–0.34 (58%)attempts 14–11goals 0–0
- Scandella – Spurgeon15:30
xG 0.50–0.45 (53%)attempts 13–16goals 0–0
- Ballard – Dumba6:21
xG 0.17–0.27 (38%)attempts 3–4goals 1–1
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Perry – Beleskey10:03
xG 0.33–0.19 (63%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
- Jackman – Thompson – Wagner2:58
xG 0.02–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Cogliano – Silfverberg – Karlsson6:01
xG 0.16–0.20 (44%)attempts 7–5goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Smith-Pelly3:25
xG 0.17–0.29 (37%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBeauchemin – Lindholm15:30
xG 0.70–0.28 (71%)attempts 15–10goals 1–0
- Lovejoy – Fowler14:33
xG 0.32–0.48 (40%)attempts 13–10goals 0–0
- Stoner – Vatanen14:10
xG 0.28–0.57 (33%)attempts 10–16goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 70% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).