Thu, Jan 21, 2016·TD Garden, Boston
Vancouver Canucks 4, Boston Bruins 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vancouver Canucks win this game 62% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 14 | 012 | 311 | 427 |
| BOS | 011 | 111 | 18 | 230 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:27VANSven BaertschiAssists: Radim Vrbata, Bo Horvat · Wrist, 0.17 xG1–0
- P2 19:08BOSJimmy HayesAssists: David Pastrnak, Ryan Spooner · Wrist, 0.06 xG1–1
- P3 1:49VANAlexandre BurrowsAssists: Linden Vey, Alexander Edler · Snap, 0.07 xG2–1
- P3 4:15BOSBrad MarchandAssists: Patrice Bergeron · Wrist, 0.02 xG2–2
- P3 7:03VANDaniel SedinGWGAssists: Chris Tanev, Jannik Hansen · Wrist, 0.22 xG3–2
- P3 19:37VANDaniel SedinENAssists: Linden Vey, Derek Dorsett · Wrist, 0.64 xG4–2
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 20:00Talbot won the faceoff against Horvat
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestBurrows – Vey – Etem14:13
xG 0.51–0.12 (81%)attempts 11–10goals 1–0
- Vrbata – Baertschi – Horvat13:04
xG 0.39–0.33 (54%)attempts 9–13goals 1–1
- Sedin – Hansen – McCann11:26
xG 0.43–0.51 (46%)attempts 9–14goals 1–0
- Dorsett – Zalewski – Virtanen9:16
xG 0.16–0.34 (32%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEdler – Tanev19:12
xG 0.84–0.48 (63%)attempts 21–15goals 1–1
- Biega – Bartkowski15:12
xG 0.34–0.50 (40%)attempts 11–16goals 0–1
- Sbisa – Hutton15:58
xG 0.26–0.51 (34%)attempts 7–17goals 0–0
Boston Bruins
Forward lines
- bestBergeron – Marchand – Connolly13:12
xG 0.48–0.38 (56%)attempts 14–9goals 1–1
- Eriksson – Krejci – Beleskey6:22
xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Talbot – Rinaldo – Ferraro9:16
xG 0.23–0.18 (56%)attempts 12–10goals 0–0
- Eriksson – Krejci – Pastrnak9:08
xG 0.28–0.25 (53%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestChara – Trotman19:22
xG 0.71–0.47 (60%)attempts 18–11goals 0–1
- Seidenberg – Krug2:53
xG 0.13–0.10 (55%)attempts 3–3goals 2–0
- Miller – Morrow2:31
xG 0.08–0.11 (41%)attempts 2–3goals 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.
BOS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line BOS is favoured, below it VAN. 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, Vancouver Canucks win this game 62% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BOS − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).