Wed, Dec 31, 2014·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Carolina Hurricanes 1, Pittsburgh Penguins 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 60% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAR | 16 | 07 | 012 | 125 |
| PIT | 19 | 017 | 113 | 239 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 9:12CAREric StaalAssists: Elias Lindholm, Jiri Tlusty · Wrist, 0.08 xG1–0
- P1 19:38PITChris KunitzAssists: Beau Bennett, Andrew Ebbett · Wrist, 0.10 xG1–1
- P3 18:18PITBrandon SutterGWGAssists: Beau Bennett, Chris Kunitz · Wrist, 0.05 xG1–2
Penalties (8)
- P1 4:35CAREric Staal: Interference2 min
- P1 16:45PITBryan Rust: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P2 3:31PITJayson Megna: Holding the stick2 min
- P2 3:31CARElias Lindholm: Hooking2 min
- P2 7:16CARJay McClement: Hooking2 min
- P2 13:56CARBrad Malone: Hooking2 min
- P3 0:51PITChristian Ehrhoff: Boarding2 min
- P3 6:33PITChris Kunitz: Slashing2 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 20:00Sutter won the faceoff against Staal
- 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.
Carolina Hurricanes
Forward lines
- bestStaal – Skinner – Lindholm4:30
xG 0.27–0.14 (67%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0
- Staal – Tlusty – Lindholm8:17
xG 0.33–0.27 (55%)attempts 4–9goals 1–0
- Terry – Nash – Skinner3:24
xG 0.03–0.06 (31%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Dwyer – Gerbe – Rask5:41
xG 0.01–0.06 (18%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHainsey – Bellemore11:59
xG 0.80–0.36 (69%)attempts 10–12goals 1–1
- Hainsey – Faulk2:24
xG 0.18–0.10 (65%)attempts 6–4goals 0–1
- Jordan – Murphy8:36
xG 0.10–0.31 (25%)attempts 5–13goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestMalkin – Crosby – Rust12:38
xG 0.59–0.09 (87%)attempts 17–11goals 0–0
- Ebbett – Farnham – Megna2:25
xG 0.13–0.02 (87%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Sutter – Bennett9:24
xG 0.41–0.38 (52%)attempts 16–7goals 1–0
- Goc – Spaling – Megna2:03
xG 0.01–0.01 (57%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestScuderi – Despres10:56
xG 0.53–0.04 (93%)attempts 19–6goals 2–0
- Ehrhoff – Letang15:15
xG 0.74–0.32 (70%)attempts 23–9goals 0–0
- Scuderi – Bortuzzo2:29
xG 0.08–0.07 (56%)attempts 2–4goals 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 CAR. 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 60% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − CAR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).