Tue, Dec 29, 2015·Scotiabank Saddledome, Calgary
Anaheim Ducks 1, Calgary Flames 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 87% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 06 | 111 | 04 | 121 |
| CGY | 04 | 03 | 07 | 014 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 12:36ANAShawn HorcoffGWGAssists: Rickard Rakell, Hampus Lindholm · Slap, 0.14 xG1–0
Penalties (11)
- P1 11:00ANAJakob Silfverberg: Slashing2 min
- P2 1:02CGYDennis Wideman: High sticking double minor4 min
- P2 2:53ANAJiri Sekac: Interference2 min
- P3 14:06ANARyan Getzlaf: Hooking2 min
- P3 19:42ANASami Vatanen: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 0:00ANARyan Kesler: Roughing2 min
- P3 0:00CGYDennis Wideman: Roughing2 min
- P3 0:00CGYDennis Wideman: Fighting5 min
- P3 0:00ANARyan Getzlaf: Fighting5 min
- P3 0:00ANARyan Kesler: Misconduct10 min
- P3 0:00CGYTJ Brodie: Roughing2 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 20:00Monahan 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 – Rakell14:35
xG 0.79–0.16 (83%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Kesler – Hagelin – Silfverberg11:01
xG 0.61–0.28 (69%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Horcoff – Thompson – Cogliano2:26
xG 0.24–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Thompson – Cogliano – Maroon6:28
xG 0.22–0.02 (93%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Vatanen17:40
xG 0.94–0.27 (78%)attempts 16–11goals 0–0
- Stoner – Theodore11:35
xG 0.56–0.02 (96%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Manson – Lindholm14:52
xG 0.55–0.06 (91%)attempts 12–5goals 1–0
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- Stajan – Bouma – Bollig8:38
xG 0.01–0.21 (5%)attempts 1–10goals 0–0
- Backlund – Colborne – Ferland9:08
xG 0.15–0.54 (21%)attempts 3–6goals 0–1
- Jones – Granlund – Bennett9:19
xG 0.00–0.49 (0%)attempts 0–7goals 0–0
- Hudler – Gaudreau – Monahan14:24
xG 0.28–0.77 (26%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWideman – Hamilton2:20
xG 0.11–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Russell – Brodie2:56
xG 0.01–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Engelland – Wideman8:44
xG 0.01–0.26 (4%)attempts 1–13goals 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.
CGY's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CGY 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 87% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CGY − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).