Tue, Nov 18, 2014·Centre Bell, Montreal
Pittsburgh Penguins 4, Montréal Canadiens 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 54% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 211 | 29 | 02 | 422 |
| MTL | 07 | 06 | 014 | 027 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:46PITBeau BennettGWGUnassisted · Wrist, 0.08 xG1–0
- P1 9:43PITSteve DownieAssists: Kris Letang, Beau Bennett · Wrist, 0.11 xG2–0
- P2 0:58PITBrandon SutterAssists: Beau Bennett, Steve Downie · Wrist, 0.10 xG3–0
- P2 19:29PITSidney CrosbyPPAssists: Evgeni Malkin, Patric Hornqvist · Wrist, 0.48 xG4–0
Penalties (4)
- P2 8:04PITNick Spaling: Holding2 min
- P2 16:50PITEvgeni Malkin: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:01MTLAlex Galchenyuk: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P3 0:22PITPaul Martin: 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 20:00Plekanec won the faceoff against Crosby
- 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
- bestKunitz – Comeau – Crosby13:17
xG 0.90–0.40 (69%)attempts 17–14goals 0–0
- Downie – Sutter – Bennett11:24
xG 0.35–0.06 (85%)attempts 6–7goals 3–0
- Malkin – Hornqvist – Spaling9:06
xG 0.34–0.22 (61%)attempts 10–9goals 0–0
- Adams – Goc – Spaling3:01
xG 0.00–0.14 (0%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEhrhoff – Maatta17:45
xG 1.13–0.35 (76%)attempts 21–13goals 1–0
- Scuderi – Despres11:33
xG 0.42–0.54 (44%)attempts 9–15goals 1–0
- Martin – Letang17:58
xG 0.22–0.40 (36%)attempts 10–17goals 0–0
Montréal Canadiens
Forward lines
- Prust – Eller – Sekac11:15
xG 0.29–0.25 (54%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
- Desharnais – Pacioretty – Weise5:31
xG 0.20–0.16 (56%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
- Malhotra – Bowman – Weise3:23
xG 0.07–0.08 (46%)attempts 2–1goals 0–1
- Parenteau – Desharnais – Pacioretty8:47
xG 0.31–0.40 (44%)attempts 6–10goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestGilbert – Beaulieu10:31
xG 0.74–0.35 (68%)attempts 15–7goals 0–2
- Gonchar – Emelin17:35
xG 0.21–0.12 (64%)attempts 12–8goals 0–0
- Gilbert – Emelin2:13
xG 0.01–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 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.
MTL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MTL 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 54% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MTL − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).