Thu, Dec 11, 2014·Wells Fargo Center, Philadelphia
New Jersey Devils 1, Philadelphia Flyers 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 96% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJD | 05 | 16 | 07 | 118 |
| PHI | 210 | 012 | 214 | 436 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:12PHISean CouturierSHAssists: Matt Read · Wrist, 0.16 xG0–1
- P1 13:37PHIMatt ReadGWGAssists: Sean Couturier, Nick Schultz · Tip-in, 0.15 xG0–2
- P2 13:02NJDMartin HavlatPPAssists: Scott Gomez, Damon Severson · Tip-in, 0.21 xG1–2
- P3 15:44PHIWayne SimmondsPPAssists: Mark Streit, Claude Giroux · Wrist, 0.43 xG1–3
- P3 17:30PHIJakub VoracekENAssists: Claude Giroux, Mark Streit · Wrist, 0.63 xG1–4
Penalties (7)
- P1 3:04NJDJordin Tootoo: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P1 5:28PHIJakub Voracek: Hooking2 min
- P1 18:33NJDMartin Havlat: Tripping2 min
- P2 10:05NJDMike Sislo: Holding2 min
- P2 12:47PHINick Schultz: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 16:20NJDTuomo Ruutu: Tripping2 min
- P3 15:05NJDMichael Cammalleri: Tripping2 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 20:00Gomez won the faceoff against Giroux
- 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.
New Jersey Devils
Forward lines
- bestRuutu – Josefson – Sislo8:08
xG 0.19–0.02 (91%)attempts 10–3goals 0–0
- Tootoo – Bernier – Gionta3:25
xG 0.11–0.04 (75%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Jagr – Gomez – Havlat12:26
xG 0.43–0.41 (51%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
- Ryder – Cammalleri – Henrique10:59
xG 0.04–0.59 (6%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Greene – Harrold2:12
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Greene – Severson12:03
xG 0.11–0.24 (31%)attempts 11–7goals 0–0
- Zidlicky – Merrill15:36
xG 0.24–0.76 (24%)attempts 10–15goals 0–1
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestUmberger – Read – Couturier10:19
xG 0.86–0.50 (63%)attempts 6–10goals 0–0
- Giroux – Voracek – Raffl10:32
xG 0.28–0.03 (91%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- VandeVelde – Rinaldo – Bellemare7:16
xG 0.16–0.06 (73%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
- Simmonds – Schenn – Laughton11:53
xG 0.30–0.29 (50%)attempts 5–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestStreit – Grossmann13:15
xG 0.87–0.17 (83%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- MacDonald – Schenn13:28
xG 0.52–0.12 (81%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
- Schultz – Coburn15:34
xG 0.52–0.41 (56%)attempts 11–9goals 1–0
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.
PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI is favoured, below it NJD. 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, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 96% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − NJD), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).