Sat, Dec 19, 2015·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Carolina Hurricanes 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAR | 29 | 012 | 05 | 226 |
| PIT | 013 | 113 | 012 | 138 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:57CARJordan StaalPPAssists: Justin Faulk, Victor Rask · Wrist, 0.29 xG1–0
- P1 14:56CARJohn-Michael LilesPPGWGAssists: Brett Pesce · Slap, 0.05 xG2–0
- P2 1:59PITEvgeni MalkinPPAssists: Trevor Daley, Sidney Crosby · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 3:47PITAdam Clendening: Holding2 min · PPG
- P1 11:33PITEvgeni Malkin: High sticking2 min
- P1 13:39PITTrevor Daley: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P2 1:13CAREric Staal: Holding2 min · PPG
- P2 6:32PITSidney Crosby: Hooking2 min
- P3 3:35CARBrad Malone: High sticking2 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 Staal
- 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.
Carolina Hurricanes
Forward lines
- bestStaal – Nestrasil – Skinner2:08
xG 0.16–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Staal – Nestrasil – Nordstrom10:16
xG 0.29–0.16 (64%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Staal – Versteeg – Lindholm11:23
xG 0.31–0.23 (57%)attempts 9–6goals 0–0
- McClement – Nash – Malone3:56
xG 0.00–0.21 (0%)attempts 0–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Faulk – Hanifin2:11
xG 0.03–0.05 (37%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Pesce – Hanifin9:36
xG 0.33–0.37 (48%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Hainsey – Slavin17:02
xG 0.39–0.75 (34%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Crosby – Sheary11:03
xG 0.65–0.10 (87%)attempts 11–3goals 0–0
- Malkin – Hornqvist – Kessel14:02
xG 0.56–0.16 (78%)attempts 13–4goals 0–0
- Cullen – Fehr – Plotnikov5:48
xG 0.09–0.25 (28%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
- Porter – Bonino – Perron6:09
xG 0.18–0.35 (35%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLovejoy – Dumoulin15:58
xG 0.74–0.39 (65%)attempts 15–9goals 0–0
- Warsofsky – Clendening11:14
xG 0.47–0.20 (70%)attempts 13–5goals 0–0
- Daley – Maatta14:21
xG 0.33–0.60 (35%)attempts 9–10goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it CAR. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − CAR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).