Sat, Jan 31, 2015·SAP Center at San Jose, San Jose
Chicago Blackhawks 0, San Jose Sharks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 64% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 09 | 015 | 07 | 031 |
| SJS | 17 | 06 | 17 | 220 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:09SJSMelker KarlssonGWGAssists: Matt Irwin, Joe Thornton · Wrist, 0.38 xG0–1
- P3 18:50SJSJoe ThorntonENAssists: Melker Karlsson, Matt Tennyson · Backhand, 0.66 xG0–2
Penalties (6)
- P1 12:33CHIMarian Hossa: Interference2 min
- P1 19:03CHIAndrew Shaw: Slashing2 min
- P1 19:03SJSJoe Thornton: Slashing2 min
- P2 1:27SJSMatt Tennyson: High sticking2 min
- P2 3:37CHIJoakim Nordstrom: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P2 12:58CHIMichal Rozsival: Hooking2 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 Toews
- 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.
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestSmith – Kruger – Nordstrom5:48
xG 0.37–0.07 (83%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Hossa – Toews – Saad13:55
xG 0.28–0.06 (83%)attempts 11–7goals 0–0
- Bickell – Shaw – Teravainen6:34
xG 0.27–0.15 (64%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
- Bickell – Kane – Shaw2:17
xG 0.00–0.19 (0%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSeabrook – Hjalmarsson9:40
xG 0.45–0.06 (88%)attempts 11–5goals 0–0
- Rozsival – Oduya10:57
xG 0.33–0.09 (79%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- Keith – Seabrook6:19
xG 0.12–0.05 (70%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestThornton – Pavelski – Karlsson11:55
xG 0.97–0.59 (62%)attempts 9–12goals 1–0
- Sheppard – Goodrow – Hertl9:05
xG 0.38–0.10 (80%)attempts 12–5goals 0–0
- Marleau – Couture – Nieto15:30
xG 0.30–0.24 (56%)attempts 9–11goals 0–0
- Desjardins – Scott – McGinn3:42
xG 0.00–0.23 (0%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHannan – Irwin11:00
xG 0.28–0.19 (59%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Burns – Vlasic16:20
xG 0.41–0.45 (48%)attempts 11–12goals 0–0
- Dillon – Tennyson14:59
xG 0.23–0.64 (26%)attempts 8–13goals 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.
SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS is favoured, below it CHI. 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 64% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).