Sat, Nov 29, 2014·Gila River Arena, Glendale
Calgary Flames 3, Arizona Coyotes 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Calgary Flames win this game 59% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGY | 013 | 15 | 211 | 329 |
| ARI | 03 | 015 | 08 | 026 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 4:34CGYTJ BrodieGWGAssists: Jiri Hudler, Johnny Gaudreau · Slap, 0.05 xG1–0
- P3 4:07CGYJohnny GaudreauAssists: Jiri Hudler, Mark Giordano · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–0
- P3 7:13CGYJiri HudlerPPAssists: Sean Monahan, Dennis Wideman · Backhand, 0.14 xG3–0
Penalties (3)
- P1 0:59ARIMikkel Boedker: High sticking double minor4 min
- P2 15:56CGYBrandon Bollig: High sticking2 min
- P3 6:49ARIMartin Erat: Hooking2 min · PPG
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 20:00Monahan won the faceoff against Hanzal
- 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.
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestHudler – Gaudreau – Jooris8:46
xG 0.35–0.09 (81%)attempts 11–7goals 2–0
- Hudler – Gaudreau – Granlund2:01
xG 0.12–0.02 (84%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Byron – Ferland – Granlund6:51
xG 0.13–0.15 (46%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
- Bouma – Bollig – Baertschi6:39
xG 0.12–0.18 (39%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestGiordano – Brodie17:22
xG 0.56–0.16 (78%)attempts 21–16goals 2–0
- Russell – Brodie3:45
xG 0.05–0.01 (86%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Engelland – Diaz9:44
xG 0.21–0.18 (54%)attempts 3–12goals 0–0
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestErat – Gagner – Rieder5:03
xG 0.15–0.03 (83%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
- Korpikoski – Hanzal – McMillan3:19
xG 0.08–0.03 (74%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Crombeen – Vitale – McMillan4:39
xG 0.13–0.09 (61%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
- Erat – Gagner – Shinnimin7:19
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 8–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMichalek – Ekman-Larsson18:46
xG 0.36–0.07 (83%)attempts 22–8goals 0–0
- Schlemko – Murphy12:44
xG 0.12–0.32 (27%)attempts 7–12goals 0–0
- Yandle – Stone18:36
xG 0.44–0.73 (38%)attempts 22–23goals 0–2
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.
ARI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ARI is favoured, below it CGY. 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, Calgary Flames win this game 59% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ARI − CGY), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).