Tue, Oct 28, 2014·United Center, Chicago
Anaheim Ducks 1, Chicago Blackhawks 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 75% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 010 | 010 | 15 | 125 |
| CHI | 09 | 011 | 018 | 038 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 11:32ANADevante Smith-PellySHGWGUnassisted · Backhand, 0.12 xG1–0
Penalties (6)
- P1 7:11ANAHampus Lindholm: High sticking2 min
- P1 7:11CHIAndrew Shaw: Embellishment2 min
- P1 14:55CHIBryan Bickell: Interference2 min
- P2 11:15ANAClayton Stoner: Holding2 min
- P3 9:34ANASami Vatanen: High sticking2 min
- P3 17:25ANASami Vatanen: Tripping2 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 20:00Kesler won the faceoff against Shaw
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- Kesler – Cogliano – Smith-Pelly11:55
xG 0.26–0.34 (43%)attempts 7–13goals 0–0
- Thompson – Beleskey – Silfverberg9:22
xG 0.31–0.49 (39%)attempts 6–13goals 0–0
- Heatley – Getzlaf – Perry11:42
xG 0.15–0.46 (25%)attempts 7–10goals 0–0
- Jackman – Etem – Rakell7:34
xG 0.06–0.55 (9%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestStoner – Fowler15:57
xG 0.53–0.39 (58%)attempts 13–14goals 0–0
- Beauchemin – Lindholm14:56
xG 0.26–0.90 (23%)attempts 9–18goals 0–0
- Fistric – Vatanen13:48
xG 0.18–0.81 (18%)attempts 10–15goals 0–0
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestHossa – Bickell – Toews11:10
xG 0.74–0.20 (79%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- Kane – Shaw – Saad11:09
xG 0.74–0.44 (63%)attempts 13–12goals 0–0
- Richards – Sharp – Versteeg10:02
xG 0.33–0.08 (81%)attempts 10–4goals 0–0
- Smith – Morin – Kruger8:26
xG 0.14–0.19 (42%)attempts 8–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRozsival – van Riemsdyk13:54
xG 0.98–0.24 (80%)attempts 17–8goals 0–0
- Keith – Seabrook16:04
xG 0.61–0.37 (62%)attempts 17–12goals 0–0
- Oduya – Hjalmarsson13:45
xG 0.55–0.43 (56%)attempts 12–11goals 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.
CHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CHI is favoured, below it ANA. 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, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 75% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).