Tue, Jan 5, 2016·Scotiabank Saddledome, Calgary
Tampa Bay Lightning 1, Calgary Flames 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Calgary Flames win this game 60% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 08 | 014 | 19 | 131 |
| CGY | 113 | 17 | 14 | 324 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:56CGYMatt StajanAssists: Mark Giordano, TJ Brodie · Backhand, 0.13 xG0–1
- P2 15:30CGYDavid JonesGWGAssists: Mark Giordano · Tip-in, 0.17 xG0–2
- P3 18:21TBLSteven StamkosAssists: Anton Stralman, Valtteri Filppula · Wrist, 0.34 xG1–2
- P3 19:02CGYLance BoumaENAssists: Dennis Wideman, Kris Russell · Wrist, 0.52 xG1–3
Penalties (1)
- P3 1:14TBLCedric Paquette: 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 20:00Paquette won the faceoff against Stajan
- 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.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestJohnson – Palat – Kucherov16:18
xG 0.83–0.52 (62%)attempts 19–13goals 0–0
- Filppula – Stamkos – Namestnikov4:05
xG 0.05–0.11 (29%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Boyle – Namestnikov – Marchessault7:04
xG 0.22–0.36 (39%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Filppula – Killorn – Stamkos12:02
xG 0.25–0.61 (29%)attempts 13–17goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCoburn – Nesterov9:03
xG 0.48–0.06 (90%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Hedman – Sustr2:43
xG 0.18–0.16 (53%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Garrison – Nesterov3:45
xG 0.06–0.08 (41%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestColborne – Gaudreau – Monahan13:52
xG 0.55–0.18 (76%)attempts 19–10goals 0–0
- Stajan – Bouma – Jooris10:01
xG 0.47–0.29 (62%)attempts 4–13goals 0–0
- Jones – Backlund – Ferland12:52
xG 0.57–0.59 (49%)attempts 13–12goals 1–0
- Raymond – Granlund – Bennett12:29
xG 0.36–0.52 (41%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestGiordano – Brodie20:13
xG 1.23–0.28 (81%)attempts 27–14goals 2–0
- Wideman – Russell2:50
xG 0.03–0.06 (31%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Russell – Brodie3:12
xG 0.04–0.25 (13%)attempts 1–5goals 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 TBL. 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, Calgary Flames win this game 60% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CGY − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).