Tue, Dec 30, 2014·SAP Center at San Jose, San Jose
Vancouver Canucks 3, San Jose Sharks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 82% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 17 | 27 | 07 | 321 |
| SJS | 011 | 112 | 09 | 132 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:08VANBo HorvatAssists: Derek Dorsett, Ryan Stanton · Wrist, 0.09 xG1–0
- P2 3:05VANJannik HansenGWGAssists: Alexander Edler, Brad Richardson · Wrist, 0.05 xG2–0
- P2 4:36SJSJoe ThorntonUnassisted · Wrist, 0.37 xG2–1
- P2 7:09VANRadim VrbataAssists: Henrik Sedin, Daniel Sedin · Wrist, 0.04 xG3–1
Penalties (7)
- P1 8:28VANAlexander Edler: Penalty shot tripping on breakaway0 min
- P1 13:31VANKevin Bieksa: High sticking2 min
- P1 14:26SJSJoe Thornton: Slashing2 min
- P1 15:18VANHenrik Sedin: Tripping2 min
- P2 0:59VANJannik Hansen: Illegal check to head2 min
- P2 4:36VANChris Tanev: Penalty shot tripping on breakaway0 min
- P2 12:23VANDaniel Sedin: 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 20:00Couture won the faceoff against Sedin
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestBurrows – Richardson – Dorsett2:56
xG 0.22–0.01 (95%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Vrbata15:22
xG 0.23–0.20 (53%)attempts 13–10goals 1–0
- Richardson – Matthias – Vey6:16
xG 0.05–0.14 (25%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
- Higgins – Hansen – Bonino10:11
xG 0.24–0.38 (39%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWeber – Sbisa11:10
xG 0.21–0.14 (60%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Bieksa – Stanton15:46
xG 0.73–0.74 (50%)attempts 21–19goals 1–0
- Edler – Tanev16:22
xG 0.25–0.31 (45%)attempts 16–10goals 2–0
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestThornton – Pavelski – Hertl10:23
xG 0.74–0.41 (65%)attempts 15–11goals 0–0
- Sheppard – Goodrow – Karlsson9:04
xG 0.30–0.13 (69%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Thornton – Pavelski – Nieto2:11
xG 0.05–0.05 (51%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Desjardins – Haley – Nieto6:45
xG 0.07–0.16 (30%)attempts 3–7goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestIrwin – Tennyson12:46
xG 1.04–0.26 (80%)attempts 21–9goals 0–0
- Vlasic – Braun16:19
xG 0.18–0.14 (55%)attempts 11–10goals 0–0
- Burns – Dillon15:41
xG 0.42–0.73 (36%)attempts 16–20goals 0–1
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.
SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS is favoured, below it VAN. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 82% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).