Thu, Apr 9, 2015·Rexall Place, Edmonton
San Jose Sharks 3, Edmonton Oilers 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 95% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 019 | 014 | 319 | 352 |
| EDM | 07 | 114 | 06 | 127 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 12:30EDMNail YakupovUnassisted · Snap, 0.06 xG0–1
- P3 10:32SJSPatrick MarleauUnassisted · Snap, 0.16 xG1–1
- P3 17:08SJSBryan LergGWGAssists: Logan Couture, Taylor Fedun · Snap, 0.18 xG2–1
- P3 19:31SJSMatt NietoENAssists: Tommy Wingels, Chris Tierney · Snap, 0.63 xG3–1
Penalties (3)
- P1 2:08EDMCurtis Hamilton: Boarding5 min
- P2 4:34SJSMatt Irwin: Tripping2 min
- P3 4:05SJSKarl Stollery: 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 20:00Pavelski won the faceoff against Hall
- 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.
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestScott – Lerg – Smith8:20
xG 1.06–0.04 (96%)attempts 20–3goals 0–0
- Thornton – Pavelski – Karlsson12:19
xG 1.21–0.22 (85%)attempts 26–10goals 0–0
- Marleau – Couture – Hertl11:36
xG 1.02–0.54 (66%)attempts 15–17goals 1–1
- Wingels – Nieto – Tierney11:35
xG 0.72–0.40 (64%)attempts 16–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBraun – Dillon16:03
xG 1.95–0.33 (85%)attempts 26–13goals 0–1
- Burns – Stollery15:48
xG 1.53–0.36 (81%)attempts 36–15goals 0–0
- Irwin – Fedun14:34
xG 0.60–0.56 (52%)attempts 15–15goals 1–0
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- Lander – Fraser – Pitlick11:12
xG 0.27–0.71 (27%)attempts 12–16goals 0–0
- Roy – Purcell – Yakupov12:50
xG 0.47–1.02 (32%)attempts 13–16goals 1–2
- Klinkhammer – Gazdic – Hamilton6:34
xG 0.04–0.64 (6%)attempts 3–12goals 0–0
- Pouliot – Eberle – Hall14:01
xG 0.41–1.15 (26%)attempts 13–27goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Aulie – Davidson13:09
xG 0.64–1.07 (37%)attempts 13–27goals 0–1
- Schultz – Klefbom15:21
xG 0.24–1.50 (14%)attempts 8–24goals 0–1
- Marincin – Musil17:03
xG 0.23–1.55 (13%)attempts 17–30goals 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.
EDM's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line EDM is favoured, below it SJS. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 95% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (EDM − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).