Sat, Oct 24, 2015·Bridgestone Arena, Nashville
Pittsburgh Penguins 2, Nashville Predators 1 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 71% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 07 | 111 | 05 | 12 | 225 |
| NSH | 05 | 017 | 117 | 00 | 139 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 15:04PITChris KunitzAssists: Evgeni Malkin, Matt Cullen · Slap, 0.06 xG1–0
- P3 11:27NSHJames NealAssists: Mike Ribeiro, Barret Jackman · Wrist, 0.17 xG1–1
- OT 0:41PITPhil KesselGWGAssists: Evgeni Malkin · Wrist, 0.35 xG2–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 5:25NSHAustin Watson: Boarding5 min
- P1 11:16PITPascal Dupuis: Holding2 min
- P2 8:18NSHRyan Ellis: Interference2 min
- P2 12:54PITEvgeni Malkin: Tripping2 min
- P2 19:16NSHShea Weber: Slashing2 min
- P3 15:17PITIan Cole: Hooking2 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 20:00Crosby won the faceoff against Fisher
- 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- Cullen – Bonino – Perron2:29
xG 0.00–0.01 (0%)attempts 0–1goals 0–0
- Cullen – Perron – Rust2:11
xG 0.00–0.03 (0%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
- Malkin – Kessel – Plotnikov7:58
xG 0.25–0.33 (43%)attempts 8–9goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Bonino – Sprong5:20
xG 0.08–0.15 (33%)attempts 4–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Lovejoy – Dumoulin12:58
xG 0.31–0.40 (43%)attempts 11–14goals 0–0
- Letang – Cole15:36
xG 0.43–0.65 (40%)attempts 11–25goals 0–0
- Scuderi – Maatta12:38
xG 0.21–0.63 (25%)attempts 10–15goals 0–0
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestFisher – Neal – Forsberg11:56
xG 0.73–0.37 (66%)attempts 23–9goals 0–0
- Hodgson – Bourque – Arvidsson6:27
xG 0.33–0.03 (92%)attempts 8–5goals 0–0
- Ribeiro – Wilson – Smith11:40
xG 0.44–0.32 (58%)attempts 17–7goals 0–0
- Gaustad – Nystrom – Watson5:22
xG 0.04–0.05 (42%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWeber – Josi14:53
xG 0.68–0.38 (64%)attempts 28–15goals 0–0
- Jackman – Jones13:03
xG 0.55–0.30 (65%)attempts 16–9goals 0–0
- Ellis – Ekholm12:20
xG 0.32–0.22 (59%)attempts 9–7goals 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.
NSH's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line NSH is favoured, below it PIT. 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, Nashville Predators win this game 71% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NSH − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).