Wed, Mar 25, 2015·Wells Fargo Center, Philadelphia
Chicago Blackhawks 1, Philadelphia Flyers 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 77% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 011 | 014 | 110 | 135 |
| PHI | 113 | 29 | 111 | 433 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:20PHIWayne SimmondsAssists: Matt Read, Nick Schultz · Snap, 0.06 xG0–1
- P2 7:09PHIRyan WhiteGWGAssists: Carlo Colaiacovo, Nicklas Grossmann · Tip-in, 0.14 xG0–2
- P2 13:58PHIClaude GirouxAssists: Jakub Voracek, Michael Del Zotto · Deflected, 0.08 xG0–3
- P3 2:24CHIAndrew ShawPPAssists: Duncan Keith, Brandon Saad · Tip-in, 0.02 xG1–3
- P3 15:55PHIMichael RafflPPAssists: Matt Read, Michael Del Zotto · Snap, 0.06 xG1–4
Penalties (6)
- P3 2:10PHICarlo Colaiacovo: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P3 5:19CHIDaniel Carcillo: Fighting5 min
- P3 5:19PHIPierre-Edouard Bellemare: Fighting5 min
- P3 6:03PHIMichael Del Zotto: Slashing2 min
- P3 9:06CHIKris Versteeg: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P3 14:44CHIJonathan Toews: Hooking2 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 20:00Toews won the faceoff against Giroux
- 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
- bestRichards – Carcillo – Versteeg4:34
xG 0.22–0.06 (79%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
- Toews – Shaw – Saad6:11
xG 0.54–0.49 (52%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
- Kruger – Nordstrom – Shaw2:52
xG 0.19–0.14 (57%)attempts 5–1goals 0–1
- Desjardins – Kruger – Nordstrom3:02
xG 0.10–0.13 (43%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestOduya – Hjalmarsson17:12
xG 0.86–0.68 (56%)attempts 25–13goals 0–1
- Rozsival – Keith19:21
xG 0.88–1.37 (39%)attempts 23–23goals 0–2
- Timonen – Seabrook15:01
xG 0.35–0.90 (28%)attempts 10–19goals 0–0
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestVandeVelde – Schenn – Bellemare10:31
xG 0.87–0.19 (82%)attempts 11–7goals 0–0
- Simmonds – Read – Couturier9:49
xG 0.78–0.27 (74%)attempts 14–8goals 1–0
- Giroux – Voracek – Raffl15:59
xG 0.85–0.65 (57%)attempts 21–21goals 1–0
- White – Rinaldo – Cousins8:00
xG 0.36–0.24 (60%)attempts 5–9goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestColaiacovo – Grossmann15:13
xG 1.44–0.15 (91%)attempts 19–10goals 1–0
- Schultz – MacDonald12:43
xG 0.55–0.45 (55%)attempts 11–12goals 1–0
- MacDonald – Del Zotto2:49
xG 0.16–0.17 (49%)attempts 3–4goals 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.
PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI 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, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 77% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).