Thu, Jan 21, 2016·Gila River Arena, Glendale
San Jose Sharks 3, Arizona Coyotes 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 86% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 28 | 08 | 17 | 323 |
| ARI | 07 | 08 | 19 | 124 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:23SJSTommy WingelsAssists: Justin Braun, Joonas Donskoi · Wrist, 0.06 xG1–0
- P1 9:56SJSChris TierneyGWGAssists: Mike Brown, Melker Karlsson · Wrist, 0.16 xG2–0
- P3 11:24ARIBrad RichardsonAssists: Shane Doan, Connor Murphy · Backhand, 0.07 xG2–1
- P3 19:08SJSPatrick MarleauENAssists: Joe Thornton, Joe Pavelski · Backhand, 0.76 xG3–1
Penalties (3)
- P3 1:47SJSJoel Ward: High sticking2 min
- P3 4:39ARIKlas Dahlbeck: Holding2 min
- P3 17:20ARIOliver Ekman-Larsson: Holding2 min · PPG
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 20:00Richardson won the faceoff against Pavelski
- 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.
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestBrown – Tierney – Karlsson5:22
xG 0.31–0.14 (69%)attempts 6–3goals 1–0
- Couture – Wingels – Donskoi10:54
xG 0.27–0.11 (71%)attempts 10–5goals 1–0
- Thornton – Pavelski – Hertl14:19
xG 0.40–0.27 (60%)attempts 10–17goals 0–0
- Marleau – Ward – Nieto10:26
xG 0.44–0.31 (59%)attempts 5–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestMartin – Burns14:48
xG 0.61–0.29 (67%)attempts 14–7goals 1–0
- Vlasic – Braun17:29
xG 0.55–0.34 (62%)attempts 14–13goals 1–1
- Burns – Dillon5:57
xG 0.17–0.28 (38%)attempts 4–14goals 0–0
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestDoan – Richardson – Martinook12:48
xG 0.52–0.24 (68%)attempts 16–10goals 1–0
- Hanzal – Duclair – Domi2:11
xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–0goals 0–0
- Vermette – Boedker – Domi8:57
xG 0.22–0.27 (44%)attempts 7–9goals 0–1
- Hanzal – Rieder – Duclair9:14
xG 0.13–0.20 (40%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEkman-Larsson – Murphy18:48
xG 0.72–0.40 (64%)attempts 19–12goals 1–0
- Stone – Ekman-Larsson2:46
xG 0.03–0.15 (17%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Grossmann – Stone14:29
xG 0.31–0.49 (39%)attempts 14–12goals 0–2
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.
ARI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ARI is favoured, below it SJS. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 86% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ARI − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).