Tue, Feb 3, 2015·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Chicago Blackhawks 0, Minnesota Wild 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 83% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 09 | 05 | 010 | 024 |
| MIN | 211 | 124 | 08 | 343 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:40MINMikko KoivuGWGUnassisted · Backhand, 0.23 xG0–1
- P1 10:00MINJason ZuckerAssists: Marco Scandella, Mikko Koivu · Backhand, 0.13 xG0–2
- P2 14:12MINMikael GranlundAssists: Zach Parise · Slap, 0.09 xG0–3
Penalties (7)
- P2 3:47CHIMarian Hossa: Slashing2 min
- P2 4:56CHIJohnny Oduya: Hooking2 min
- P2 11:45MINMikko Koivu: Tripping2 min
- P2 17:41MINNate Prosser: Hooking2 min
- P2 18:03CHIAndrew Shaw: Interference2 min
- P3 7:40MINJason Zucker: High sticking2 min
- P3 7:40CHIJonathan Toews: 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 20:00Toews won the faceoff against Koivu
- 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 – Nordstrom8:33
xG 0.26–0.14 (64%)attempts 12–7goals 0–0
- Bickell – Shaw – Teravainen8:46
xG 0.29–0.24 (54%)attempts 8–4goals 0–1
- Hossa – Toews – Saad11:40
xG 0.20–0.30 (40%)attempts 8–12goals 0–0
- Richards – Sharp – Kane8:34
xG 0.18–0.65 (22%)attempts 8–9goals 0–2
Defence pairs
- Rozsival – Oduya11:38
xG 0.17–0.17 (50%)attempts 9–5goals 0–1
- Keith – Seabrook2:32
xG 0.00–0.20 (0%)attempts 0–8goals 0–0
- Seabrook – Hjalmarsson13:47
xG 0.45–0.66 (41%)attempts 17–16goals 0–1
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestKoivu – Pominville – Zucker11:32
xG 0.77–0.13 (86%)attempts 15–4goals 2–0
- Schroeder – Coyle – Niederreiter9:25
xG 0.30–0.15 (67%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Vanek – Parise – Granlund12:39
xG 0.36–0.23 (61%)attempts 19–11goals 0–0
- Brodziak – Carter – Haula10:55
xG 0.16–0.36 (32%)attempts 4–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestScandella – Spurgeon15:25
xG 0.89–0.21 (81%)attempts 22–11goals 1–0
- Suter – Brodin15:25
xG 0.57–0.36 (62%)attempts 17–11goals 0–0
- Scandella – Brodin2:18
xG 0.02–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–1goals 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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 83% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).