Thu, Dec 31, 2015·Rexall Place, Edmonton
Anaheim Ducks 1, Edmonton Oilers 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 81% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 111 | 014 | 010 | 135 |
| EDM | 09 | 05 | 07 | 021 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 11:58ANARyan GetzlafPPGWGAssists: Corey Perry · Backhand, 0.04 xG1–0
Penalties (9)
- P1 10:25EDMTaylor Hall: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P1 13:24ANAShawn Horcoff: Boarding2 min
- P1 16:11ANASami Vatanen: Hooking2 min
- P2 12:21EDMMatt Hendricks: Fighting5 min
- P2 12:21ANAKevin Bieksa: Fighting5 min
- P2 13:26EDMLuke Gazdic: Roughing2 min
- P2 13:26ANAPatrick Maroon: Roughing2 min
- P3 4:16EDMRyan Nugent-Hopkins: Tripping2 min
- P3 18:36ANAShawn Horcoff: 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 20:00Hendricks 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKesler – Hagelin – Silfverberg8:25
xG 0.81–0.26 (75%)attempts 8–10goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Rakell10:58
xG 0.35–0.07 (84%)attempts 11–5goals 0–0
- Horcoff – Santorelli – Sekac7:29
xG 0.30–0.02 (95%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
- Thompson – Cogliano – Maroon5:46
xG 0.16–0.03 (85%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Vatanen16:23
xG 1.16–0.27 (81%)attempts 22–10goals 0–0
- Manson – Lindholm18:13
xG 0.50–0.34 (60%)attempts 13–15goals 0–0
- Stoner – Theodore10:02
xG 0.14–0.10 (59%)attempts 8–5goals 0–0
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- bestGazdic – Lander – Khaira3:32
xG 0.20–0.07 (73%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
- Eberle – Hall – Nugent-Hopkins8:41
xG 0.26–0.21 (55%)attempts 10–7goals 0–0
- Purcell – Hall – Draisaitl7:23
xG 0.08–0.16 (33%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
- Pouliot – Purcell – Draisaitl5:52
xG 0.00–0.10 (0%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestFayne – Hunt3:04
xG 0.22–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–0goals 0–0
- Davidson – Nurse5:22
xG 0.14–0.12 (54%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Sekera – Schultz2:51
xG 0.00–0.05 (0%)attempts 0–6goals 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.
EDM's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line EDM 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 81% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (EDM − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).