Mon, Mar 30, 2015·Scottrade Center, St. Louis
Vancouver Canucks 4, St. Louis Blues 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vancouver Canucks win this game 54% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 08 | 28 | 26 | 422 |
| STL | 010 | 16 | 08 | 124 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 3:54VANShawn MatthiasAssists: Chris Tanev · Wrist, 0.16 xG1–0
- P2 12:44STLZbynek MichalekAssists: Olli Jokinen, T.J. Oshie · Slap, 0.02 xG1–1
- P2 13:15VANNick BoninoGWGAssists: Kevin Bieksa, Radim Vrbata · Slap, 0.37 xG2–1
- P3 7:06VANRadim VrbataAssists: Chris Higgins, Chris Tanev · Wrist, 0.05 xG3–1
- P3 18:29VANAlexandre BurrowsENAssists: Daniel Sedin · Wrist, 0.54 xG4–1
Penalties (3)
- P1 17:02STLMarcel Goc: Holding2 min
- P2 1:14VANAlexander Edler: Holding2 min
- P3 8:08VANKevin Bieksa: 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 20:00Jokinen 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
- bestVrbata – Higgins – Bonino10:59
xG 0.76–0.31 (71%)attempts 10–14goals 2–1
- Sedin – Sedin – Burrows11:46
xG 0.16–0.38 (30%)attempts 6–11goals 0–0
- Hansen – Horvat – Kenins12:59
xG 0.17–0.41 (30%)attempts 9–11goals 0–0
- Dorsett – Matthias – Vey10:19
xG 0.20–0.72 (22%)attempts 5–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHamhuis – Weber15:01
xG 0.40–0.34 (54%)attempts 9–11goals 0–1
- Edler – Tanev16:40
xG 0.59–0.65 (48%)attempts 13–18goals 2–0
- Bieksa – Sbisa16:35
xG 0.18–0.89 (16%)attempts 8–20goals 0–0
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestOtt – Goc – Reaves7:04
xG 0.26–0.05 (85%)attempts 8–2goals 0–0
- Ott – Stastny – Berglund2:45
xG 0.22–0.05 (83%)attempts 5–1goals 0–1
- Stastny – Berglund – Schwartz2:41
xG 0.15–0.07 (69%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- Jokinen – Backes – Oshie13:27
xG 0.40–0.33 (55%)attempts 18–9goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestShattenkirk – Gunnarsson8:37
xG 0.45–0.03 (93%)attempts 12–4goals 0–0
- Gunnarsson – Pietrangelo10:03
xG 0.57–0.29 (67%)attempts 14–9goals 0–0
- Jackman – Michalek4:58
xG 0.29–0.03 (92%)attempts 5–3goals 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.
STL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line STL 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 54% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (STL − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).