Sun, Dec 27, 2015·United Center, Chicago
Carolina Hurricanes 2, Chicago Blackhawks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 64% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAR | 012 | 16 | 19 | 227 |
| CHI | 011 | 06 | 119 | 136 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 19:41CARJustin FaulkAssists: Jeff Skinner, Phillip Di Giuseppe · Wrist, 0.02 xG1–0
- P3 4:48CARVictor RaskGWGAssists: Jeff Skinner, Brett Pesce · Wrist, 0.03 xG2–0
- P3 19:57CHIBrent SeabrookAssists: Andrew Shaw, Jonathan Toews · Backhand, 0.07 xG2–1
Penalties (5)
- P2 7:57CARBrett Pesce: Holding2 min
- P2 14:30CHINiklas Hjalmarsson: Hooking2 min
- P2 14:30CARJoakim Nordstrom: Embellishment2 min
- P3 17:12CHIAndrew Shaw: High sticking2 min
- P3 17:12CARJoakim Nordstrom: 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 20:00Staal won the faceoff against Toews
- 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
- bestSkinner – Rask – Di Giuseppe13:02
xG 0.36–0.29 (55%)attempts 11–14goals 2–0
- McClement – Terry – Nash5:46
xG 0.21–0.22 (48%)attempts 3–8goals 0–0
- Staal – Versteeg – Lindholm11:16
xG 0.26–0.77 (25%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
- Staal – Nestrasil – Nordstrom11:04
xG 0.23–0.75 (23%)attempts 6–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestPesce – Hanifin12:48
xG 0.58–0.46 (56%)attempts 16–15goals 1–0
- Hainsey – Slavin17:41
xG 0.58–0.57 (50%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
- Liles – Faulk18:56
xG 0.25–1.21 (17%)attempts 11–24goals 1–0
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestHossa – Toews – Teravainen11:57
xG 0.92–0.48 (66%)attempts 17–10goals 0–0
- Desjardins – Garbutt – Danault6:32
xG 0.39–0.13 (75%)attempts 10–4goals 0–1
- Bickell – Shaw – Rasmussen7:48
xG 0.23–0.10 (69%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Anisimov – Kane – Panarin11:19
xG 0.30–0.45 (40%)attempts 11–10goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestKeith – Seabrook3:38
xG 0.77–0.00 (100%)attempts 12–1goals 0–0
- Rozsival – Scuderi9:02
xG 0.37–0.07 (84%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Seabrook – Hjalmarsson18:10
xG 0.73–0.69 (52%)attempts 17–17goals 0–1
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 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, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 64% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − CAR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).