Sat, Mar 14, 2015·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Boston Bruins 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Boston Bruins win this game 70% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOS | 114 | 08 | 18 | 230 |
| PIT | 012 | 010 | 08 | 030 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 9:53BOSMilan LucicGWGAssists: David Pastrnak, Dougie Hamilton · Wrist, 0.05 xG1–0
- P3 19:22BOSZdeno CharaENAssists: Gregory Campbell · Wrist, 0.45 xG2–0
Penalties (7)
- P1 7:18BOSDennis Seidenberg: Tripping2 min
- P1 10:51PITDavid Perron: Tripping2 min
- P1 18:28BOSLoui Eriksson: Hooking2 min
- P2 5:31PITPatric Hornqvist: Interference2 min
- P2 13:48BOSChris Kelly: High sticking2 min
- P3 6:15PITBen Lovejoy: Hooking2 min
- P3 19:22PITSteve Downie: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 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 Bergeron
- 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.
Boston Bruins
Forward lines
- Bergeron – Marchand – Smith10:19
xG 0.32–0.28 (54%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
- Lucic – Spooner – Pastrnak7:35
xG 0.16–0.12 (56%)attempts 7–5goals 1–0
- Kelly – Eriksson – Soderberg11:55
xG 0.23–0.23 (50%)attempts 6–13goals 0–0
- Campbell – Talbot – Paille9:28
xG 0.33–0.36 (48%)attempts 12–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestChara – Hamilton11:57
xG 0.53–0.40 (57%)attempts 12–11goals 1–0
- Seidenberg – Bartkowski14:16
xG 0.42–0.36 (54%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
- McQuaid – Krug9:17
xG 0.16–0.17 (49%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Malkin – Comeau2:36
xG 0.22–0.06 (80%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
- Winnik – Downie – Bennett6:20
xG 0.18–0.04 (83%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Hornqvist – Spaling – Perron11:41
xG 0.34–0.48 (42%)attempts 12–11goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Comeau – Sutter9:33
xG 0.29–0.44 (40%)attempts 11–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMartin – Letang14:18
xG 0.53–0.27 (66%)attempts 18–10goals 0–0
- Ehrhoff – Lovejoy12:27
xG 0.40–0.24 (63%)attempts 16–7goals 0–0
- Scuderi – Cole14:15
xG 0.23–0.65 (26%)attempts 7–15goals 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 BOS. 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, Boston Bruins win this game 70% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − BOS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).