Mon, Oct 26, 2015·United Center, Chicago
Anaheim Ducks 0, Chicago Blackhawks 1 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 64% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 09 | 09 | 019 | 02 | 039 |
| CHI | 06 | 011 | 06 | 11 | 124 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- OT 0:51CHIJonathan ToewsGWGAssists: Patrick Kane, Brent Seabrook · Snap, 0.10 xG0–1
Penalties (13)
- P1 2:56CHITeuvo Teravainen: High sticking2 min
- P1 5:07ANAShawn Horcoff: Interference2 min
- P1 6:37CHIDavid Rundblad: Holding the stick2 min
- P1 6:37ANARyan Kesler: Hooking2 min
- P2 7:22ANARyan Kesler: Cross checking2 min
- P2 7:53CHIAndrew Shaw: Hooking2 min
- P2 14:46ANAClayton Stoner: Instigator2 min
- P2 14:46CHIRyan Garbutt: Roughing2 min
- P2 14:46ANAClayton Stoner: Fighting5 min
- P2 14:46CHIRyan Garbutt: Fighting5 min
- P2 14:46ANAFrederik Andersen: Delaying game illegal play by goalie2 min
- P2 14:46ANAClayton Stoner: Misconduct10 min
- P3 9:20CHIMarcus Kruger: 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 20:00Anisimov won the faceoff against Kesler
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Perry – Hagelin12:19
xG 0.81–0.10 (89%)attempts 16–4goals 0–0
- Santorelli – Cogliano – Rakell8:22
xG 0.40–0.32 (55%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
- Horcoff – Maroon – Wagner5:09
xG 0.13–0.07 (66%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- Kesler – Silfverberg – Sekac13:22
xG 0.18–0.49 (27%)attempts 9–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Lindholm11:15
xG 0.64–0.10 (87%)attempts 17–6goals 0–0
- Holzer – Lindholm2:38
xG 0.32–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Vatanen – Fowler6:11
xG 0.32–0.26 (55%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestDesjardins – Kruger – Shaw8:31
xG 0.45–0.05 (91%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
- Hossa – Toews – Tikhonov7:54
xG 0.31–0.29 (52%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
- Anisimov – Kane – Panarin10:45
xG 0.19–0.24 (44%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
- Garbutt – Teravainen – Hinostroza8:00
xG 0.07–0.15 (30%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSeabrook – Svedberg16:29
xG 0.65–0.58 (53%)attempts 18–14goals 0–0
- Daley – Rundblad9:43
xG 0.23–0.29 (43%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Seabrook – Hjalmarsson2:25
xG 0.13–0.29 (31%)attempts 2–6goals 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.
CHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CHI is favoured, below it ANA. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 64% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).