Sat, Feb 21, 2015·Rexall Place, Edmonton
Anaheim Ducks 2, Edmonton Oilers 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 18 | 07 | 16 | 221 |
| EDM | 010 | 16 | 011 | 127 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 0:45ANAFrancois BeaucheminPPAssists: Kyle Palmieri, Rickard Rakell · Snap, 0.03 xG1–0
- P2 0:28EDMTeddy PurcellAssists: Nail Yakupov, Derek Roy · Snap, 0.10 xG1–1
- P3 12:47ANARyan GetzlafGWGAssists: Cam Fowler, Kyle Palmieri · Slap, 0.03 xG2–1
Penalties (3)
- P1 0:41EDMDerek Roy: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P1 2:52ANANate Thompson: Slashing2 min
- P3 14:42ANANate Thompson: Tripping2 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 20:00Kesler won the faceoff against Roy
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Maroon – Palmieri12:05
xG 0.42–0.03 (93%)attempts 11–5goals 1–0
- Jackman – Thompson – Smith-Pelly8:16
xG 0.43–0.13 (76%)attempts 11–5goals 0–0
- Kesler – Silfverberg – Etem3:25
xG 0.08–0.06 (58%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Perry – Cogliano – Rakell3:15
xG 0.00–0.09 (0%)attempts 1–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBeauchemin – Lindholm19:43
xG 0.54–0.26 (68%)attempts 13–12goals 0–0
- Lovejoy – Fowler17:22
xG 0.52–0.50 (51%)attempts 17–20goals 1–1
- Brewer – Manson15:02
xG 0.19–0.40 (32%)attempts 8–15goals 0–0
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- bestRoy – Purcell – Yakupov14:29
xG 0.43–0.19 (69%)attempts 13–7goals 1–1
- Hendricks – Hamilton – Pakarinen9:50
xG 0.18–0.05 (78%)attempts 10–5goals 0–0
- Gordon – Klinkhammer – Gazdic4:46
xG 0.16–0.10 (63%)attempts 10–3goals 0–0
- Hendricks – Gordon – Klinkhammer3:53
xG 0.06–0.04 (59%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestFerence – Oesterle13:14
xG 0.42–0.31 (58%)attempts 17–7goals 0–0
- Fayne – Marincin15:48
xG 0.16–0.15 (52%)attempts 10–9goals 1–0
- Schultz – Klefbom19:51
xG 0.57–0.70 (45%)attempts 18–19goals 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.
EDM's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line EDM is favoured, below it ANA. 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 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (EDM − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).