Thu, Dec 18, 2014·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Colorado Avalanche 0, Pittsburgh Penguins 1 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 84% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COL | 07 | 015 | 07 | 00 | 029 |
| PIT | 08 | 016 | 019 | 15 | 148 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- OT 2:24PITBlake ComeauGWGAssists: Evgeni Malkin, Rob Scuderi · Backhand, 0.24 xG0–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 2:16PITSimon Despres: Interference2 min
- P1 5:17PITSteve Downie: Elbowing2 min
- P1 11:39COLBrad Stuart: Tripping2 min
- P2 6:07COLDennis Everberg: Boarding2 min
- P2 12:37COLCody McLeod: Fighting5 min
- P2 12:37PITBobby Farnham: Fighting5 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 20:00Duchene 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.
Colorado Avalanche
Forward lines
- McLeod – Cliche – Everberg2:12
xG 0.00–0.06 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
- O'Reilly – Landeskog – MacKinnon16:14
xG 0.50–0.66 (43%)attempts 18–19goals 0–0
- Brière – Talbot – Everberg3:00
xG 0.05–0.27 (15%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
- Brière – Talbot – Cliche5:20
xG 0.16–0.48 (25%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Stuart – Redmond15:24
xG 0.68–0.74 (48%)attempts 21–20goals 0–0
- Hejda – Johnson17:39
xG 0.51–0.98 (34%)attempts 15–16goals 0–0
- Guenin – Barrie9:34
xG 0.01–0.69 (2%)attempts 2–10goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestAdams – Rust – Farnham2:56
xG 0.55–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–0goals 0–0
- Goc – Downie – Klinkhammer6:05
xG 0.21–0.02 (93%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Malkin – Crosby – Hornqvist2:34
xG 0.15–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Crosby – Hornqvist – Spaling11:52
xG 0.71–0.56 (56%)attempts 10–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestScuderi – Despres13:39
xG 1.22–0.40 (75%)attempts 24–16goals 0–0
- Despres – Harrington3:22
xG 0.25–0.01 (96%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Scuderi – Harrington4:05
xG 0.12–0.02 (88%)attempts 4–2goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it COL. 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 84% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − COL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).