Sun, Nov 23, 2014·Honda Center, Anaheim
Arizona Coyotes 1, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 62% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARI | 04 | 06 | 117 | 127 |
| ANA | 012 | 213 | 05 | 230 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 14:08ANAKyle PalmieriAssists: Ryan Kesler, Patrick Maroon · Wrist, 0.13 xG0–1
- P2 17:20ANAPatrick MaroonGWGAssists: Sami Vatanen, Ryan Kesler · Wrist, 0.38 xG0–2
- P3 8:56ARIKeith YandleAssists: Martin Erat, Zbynek Michalek · Slap, 0.15 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 8:45ARILucas Lessio: High sticking2 min
- P2 7:57ARISam Gagner: Interference2 min
- P3 2:50ANAMat Clark: Hooking2 min
- P3 9:42ANAHampus Lindholm: Holding2 min
- P3 19:19ANAFrancois Beauchemin: Cross checking2 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 20:00Thompson won the faceoff against Vermette
- 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.
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestKorpikoski – Gagner – Rieder6:13
xG 0.21–0.01 (96%)attempts 6–2goals 0–0
- Doan – Erat – Vermette6:09
xG 0.56–0.46 (55%)attempts 9–4goals 1–1
- Vitale – Boedker – Lessio2:17
xG 0.07–0.06 (51%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Vermette – Korpikoski – Boedker4:27
xG 0.10–0.15 (39%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestYandle – Stone5:15
xG 0.33–0.09 (78%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
- Michalek – Ekman-Larsson13:36
xG 0.40–0.67 (37%)attempts 13–15goals 0–1
- Schlemko – Stone12:51
xG 0.38–0.90 (30%)attempts 11–19goals 0–1
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKesler – Maroon – Palmieri10:34
xG 1.05–0.36 (74%)attempts 15–12goals 2–0
- Bourque – Smith-Pelly – Rakell9:54
xG 0.29–0.08 (79%)attempts 11–7goals 0–0
- Thompson – Cogliano – Silfverberg12:37
xG 0.26–0.16 (62%)attempts 11–5goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Beleskey11:32
xG 0.61–0.69 (47%)attempts 12–14goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestBeauchemin – Vatanen18:03
xG 1.01–0.39 (72%)attempts 18–17goals 1–0
- Clark – Lindholm12:13
xG 0.55–0.09 (86%)attempts 16–6goals 1–0
- Manson – Lindholm2:16
xG 0.09–0.06 (61%)attempts 2–2goals 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 ARI. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 62% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − ARI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).