Wed, Jan 20, 2016·Honda Center, Anaheim
Minnesota Wild 1, Anaheim Ducks 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 55% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 15 | 014 | 07 | 126 |
| ANA | 19 | 011 | 27 | 327 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:48MINJarret StollAssists: Erik Haula · Snap, 0.08 xG1–0
- P1 10:46ANAChris StewartAssists: Shea Theodore, David Perron · Tip-in, 0.03 xG1–1
- P3 13:41ANARickard RakellGWGAssists: Patrick Maroon, Corey Perry · Tip-in, 0.09 xG1–2
- P3 19:11ANAJakob SilfverbergENAssists: Andrew Cogliano, Ryan Kesler · Wrist, 0.62 xG1–3
Penalties (4)
- P1 12:07ANASami Vatanen: Interference2 min
- P2 4:41MINZach Parise: Holding2 min
- P2 17:06ANARickard Rakell: Holding2 min
- P3 16:05ANADavid Perron: Holding2 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 20:00Kesler won the faceoff against Granlund
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestPominville – Parise – Granlund14:10
xG 0.83–0.39 (68%)attempts 15–9goals 0–0
- Koivu – Coyle – Niederreiter3:36
xG 0.17–0.00 (100%)attempts 8–1goals 0–0
- Coyle – Niederreiter – Fontaine7:33
xG 0.18–0.04 (84%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
- Koivu – Vanek – Zucker9:49
xG 0.20–0.12 (62%)attempts 7–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestBrodin – Dumba12:32
xG 0.96–0.50 (65%)attempts 18–12goals 0–0
- Suter – Spurgeon18:20
xG 0.43–0.34 (56%)attempts 15–15goals 1–2
- Scandella – Prosser9:28
xG 0.13–0.18 (42%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestPerry – Maroon – Rakell8:13
xG 0.41–0.22 (66%)attempts 10–8goals 1–1
- Horcoff – Thompson – Sekac7:52
xG 0.23–0.14 (62%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Stewart – Perron12:06
xG 0.10–0.24 (28%)attempts 6–12goals 1–0
- Kesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg14:08
xG 0.54–0.74 (42%)attempts 13–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestVatanen – Lindholm3:02
xG 0.32–0.01 (96%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Holzer – Vatanen6:16
xG 0.36–0.28 (56%)attempts 8–10goals 0–1
- Bieksa – Lindholm2:02
xG 0.05–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 55% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).