Sat, Nov 22, 2014·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Minnesota Wild 1, Tampa Bay Lightning 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 58% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 07 | 112 | 012 | 131 |
| TBL | 08 | 211 | 09 | 228 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 3:11MINZach PariseAssists: Thomas Vanek · Wrist, 0.14 xG1–0
- P2 13:42TBLSteven StamkosPPAssists: Anton Stralman, Jason Garrison · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–1
- P2 18:07TBLAlex KillornGWGAssists: Anton Stralman, Ryan Callahan · Wrist, 0.02 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 7:08TBLAndrej Sustr: High sticking2 min
- P2 11:50MINRyan Carter: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P2 19:01MINRyan Suter: Cross checking2 min
- P3 2:56TBLBrian Boyle: Tripping2 min
- P3 18:43TBLTyler Johnson: 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 20:00Johnson won the faceoff against Granlund
- 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
- bestKoivu – Niederreiter – Fontaine9:16
xG 0.27–0.09 (74%)attempts 13–5goals 0–0
- Pominville – Parise – Granlund11:09
xG 0.18–0.16 (53%)attempts 9–9goals 0–1
- Brodziak – Carter – Haula6:00
xG 0.15–0.30 (33%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
- Vanek – Zucker – Coyle11:21
xG 0.10–0.43 (19%)attempts 7–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Scandella – Prosser10:42
xG 0.22–0.18 (54%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Ballard – Prosser2:41
xG 0.10–0.10 (50%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Ballard – Dumba6:09
xG 0.17–0.17 (50%)attempts 4–7goals 1–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestJohnson – Palat – Kucherov14:29
xG 0.97–0.26 (79%)attempts 21–8goals 0–0
- Callahan – Killorn – Stamkos10:16
xG 0.49–0.10 (83%)attempts 15–8goals 1–0
- Filppula – Connolly – Drouin7:39
xG 0.07–0.22 (23%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Boyle – Brown – Paquette8:14
xG 0.06–0.28 (18%)attempts 4–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestCarle – Stralman16:29
xG 0.69–0.27 (72%)attempts 21–14goals 1–0
- Barberio – Gudas13:04
xG 0.58–0.33 (64%)attempts 18–11goals 0–1
- Garrison – Sustr14:53
xG 0.40–0.20 (66%)attempts 11–13goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 58% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).