Fri, Dec 4, 2015·Honda Center, Anaheim
San Jose Sharks 0, Anaheim Ducks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 65% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 010 | 011 | 02 | 023 |
| ANA | 010 | 06 | 110 | 126 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 2:49ANAMike SantorelliGWGAssists: Nate Thompson, Chris Stewart · Slap, 0.06 xG0–1
Penalties (10)
- P1 3:02SJSPatrick Marleau: Tripping2 min
- P1 5:07ANAKevin Bieksa: Tripping2 min
- P1 9:40SJSMicheal Haley: Fighting5 min
- P1 9:40ANAChris Stewart: Fighting5 min
- P1 12:49SJSJoonas Donskoi: Hooking2 min
- P1 17:56ANAHampus Lindholm: Holding2 min
- P1 0:00ANAShawn Horcoff: High sticking2 min
- P2 11:21ANANick Ritchie: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P3 4:39SJSMelker Karlsson: Hooking2 min
- P3 16:37SJSJoe Pavelski: 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 20:00Hertl won the faceoff against Getzlaf
- 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
- bestZubrus – Brown – Haley2:53
xG 0.22–0.12 (63%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
- Thornton – Pavelski – Karlsson9:41
xG 0.46–0.40 (54%)attempts 9–15goals 0–0
- Marleau – Ward – Donskoi11:53
xG 0.28–0.39 (42%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
- Wingels – Nieto – Hertl6:58
xG 0.13–0.27 (32%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMartin – Burns9:56
xG 0.55–0.19 (75%)attempts 13–6goals 0–0
- Martin – Braun3:36
xG 0.20–0.06 (76%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
- Burns – Vlasic2:35
xG 0.07–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Perry – Rakell11:47
xG 0.54–0.13 (81%)attempts 15–8goals 0–0
- Horcoff – Cogliano – Hagelin12:06
xG 0.47–0.09 (83%)attempts 8–1goals 0–0
- Kesler – Silfverberg – Ritchie7:07
xG 0.19–0.21 (47%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Thompson – Santorelli – Stewart4:08
xG 0.10–0.26 (27%)attempts 5–9goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Fowler12:50
xG 0.33–0.14 (70%)attempts 16–9goals 1–0
- Stoner – Vatanen12:13
xG 0.55–0.55 (50%)attempts 12–17goals 0–0
- Manson – Lindholm13:09
xG 0.29–0.47 (38%)attempts 11–8goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 65% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).