Wed, Jan 14, 2015·Honda Center, Anaheim
Toronto Maple Leafs 0, Anaheim Ducks 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 86% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOR | 07 | 011 | 010 | 028 |
| ANA | 17 | 212 | 16 | 425 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 12:41ANAKyle PalmieriPPGWGAssists: Hampus Lindholm, Cam Fowler · Slap, 0.04 xG0–1
- P2 5:32ANACorey PerryAssists: Ryan Getzlaf, Ben Lovejoy · Snap, 0.07 xG0–2
- P2 14:33ANACorey PerryAssists: Ryan Getzlaf · Slap, 0.02 xG0–3
- P3 18:53ANACorey PerryENAssists: Clayton Stoner, Frederik Andersen · Slap, 0.50 xG0–4
Penalties (5)
- P1 10:45TORTrevor Smith: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P1 10:45TORRichard Panik: Hooking2 min
- P2 15:34ANARyan Kesler: Hooking2 min
- P2 18:04ANAFrancois Beauchemin: Tripping2 min
- P3 16:25ANARyan Kesler: Holding2 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 20:00Kadri won the faceoff against Getzlaf
- 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.
Toronto Maple Leafs
Forward lines
- bestBodie – Smith – Panik2:19
xG 0.22–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Santorelli – van Riemsdyk – Kadri10:56
xG 0.50–0.31 (62%)attempts 6–10goals 0–0
- Bodie – Booth – Carrick3:11
xG 0.06–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Kessel – van Riemsdyk – Bozak4:20
xG 0.10–0.05 (68%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRobidas – Gardiner8:30
xG 0.16–0.04 (78%)attempts 5–5goals 0–0
- Phaneuf – Franson15:05
xG 0.46–0.35 (57%)attempts 14–14goals 0–1
- Polak – Gardiner7:51
xG 0.16–0.10 (61%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Perry – Maroon13:09
xG 1.06–0.24 (82%)attempts 19–6goals 2–0
- Cogliano – Silfverberg – Rakell10:25
xG 0.25–0.20 (56%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
- Kesler – Bourque – Palmieri12:23
xG 0.10–0.34 (23%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
- Jackman – Thompson – Smith-Pelly8:01
xG 0.11–0.53 (18%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLovejoy – Fowler16:24
xG 0.96–0.27 (78%)attempts 20–6goals 2–0
- Beauchemin – Lindholm15:27
xG 0.43–0.37 (54%)attempts 11–12goals 0–0
- Stoner – Vatanen17:45
xG 0.13–0.96 (12%)attempts 7–18goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it TOR. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 86% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − TOR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).