Sun, Mar 22, 2015·Gila River Arena, Glendale
Vancouver Canucks 3, Arizona Coyotes 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vancouver Canucks win this game 77% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 116 | 012 | 216 | 344 |
| ARI | 110 | 06 | 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 14:23VANYannick WeberAssists: Daniel Sedin, Radim Vrbata · Wrist, 0.09 xG1–0
- P1 15:34ARIOliver Ekman-LarssonAssists: Joe Vitale · Wrist, 0.27 xG1–1
- P3 16:47VANAlexander EdlerPPGWGAssists: Yannick Weber, Radim Vrbata · Wrist, 0.22 xG2–1
- P3 18:51VANHenrik SedinENAssists: Daniel Sedin, Chris Tanev · Wrist, 0.60 xG3–1
Penalties (3)
- P2 2:32ARIAndrew Campbell: Tripping2 min
- P2 12:23VANAlexander Edler: Slashing2 min
- P3 15:03ARIJoe Vitale: Tripping2 min · PPG
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 20:00Chipchura won the faceoff against Sedin
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestDorsett – Matthias – Vey10:29
xG 0.89–0.05 (94%)attempts 20–6goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Burrows12:18
xG 0.85–0.20 (81%)attempts 12–10goals 0–0
- Hansen – McMillan – Horvat8:22
xG 0.39–0.10 (80%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Vrbata2:07
xG 0.00–0.04 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEdler – Tanev16:53
xG 1.11–0.07 (94%)attempts 29–8goals 0–0
- Hamhuis – Weber13:07
xG 0.59–0.57 (51%)attempts 12–21goals 1–0
- Bieksa – Sbisa16:08
xG 1.35–1.57 (46%)attempts 26–24goals 0–1
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestCrombeen – Vitale – McGinn4:34
xG 0.45–0.31 (59%)attempts 6–8goals 1–0
- Erat – Gagner – Arcobello12:46
xG 0.46–0.36 (56%)attempts 20–9goals 0–0
- Moss – Korpikoski – Cunningham5:46
xG 0.11–0.21 (35%)attempts 2–7goals 0–0
- Moss – Korpikoski – Vitale5:40
xG 0.07–0.25 (21%)attempts 4–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCampbell – Dahlbeck2:42
xG 0.69–0.22 (76%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
- Ekman-Larsson – Moore2:29
xG 0.05–0.19 (20%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
- Moore – Dahlbeck17:22
xG 0.50–0.75 (40%)attempts 16–18goals 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.
ARI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ARI is favoured, below it VAN. 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, Vancouver Canucks win this game 77% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ARI − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).