Tue, Feb 2, 2016·Bridgestone Arena, Nashville
St. Louis Blues 1, Nashville Predators 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, St. Louis Blues win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STL | 04 | 07 | 112 | 123 |
| NSH | 08 | 03 | 05 | 016 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 18:55STLTroy BrouwerGWGAssists: Alex Pietrangelo, Robby Fabbri · Tip-in, 0.14 xG1–0
Penalties (6)
- P1 7:42NSHMattias Ekholm: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P1 12:45STLAlex Pietrangelo: Tripping2 min
- P1 18:51STLAlexander Steen: Interference2 min
- P2 5:33STLJoel Edmundson: Slashing2 min
- P2 10:50NSHMattias Ekholm: Holding2 min
- P3 9:40NSHRyan Johansen: Slashing2 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 20:00Steen won the faceoff against Ribeiro
- 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.
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestStastny – Paajarvi – Tarasenko10:47
xG 0.79–0.13 (86%)attempts 9–4goals 0–0
- Steen – Backes – Berglund11:07
xG 0.22–0.17 (56%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Brouwer – Lehtera – Fabbri9:54
xG 0.08–0.25 (24%)attempts 7–10goals 0–0
- Upshall – Brodziak – Jaskin5:44
xG 0.08–0.39 (17%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBouwmeester – Pietrangelo14:26
xG 1.01–0.64 (61%)attempts 15–12goals 1–0
- Shattenkirk – Edmundson11:30
xG 0.05–0.05 (51%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Gunnarsson – Parayko11:23
xG 0.07–0.28 (21%)attempts 5–10goals 0–0
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestFisher – Watson – Arvidsson7:29
xG 0.18–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–0goals 0–0
- Gaustad – Bass – Salomaki5:31
xG 0.08–0.02 (82%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- Neal – Johansen – Forsberg9:41
xG 0.55–0.75 (42%)attempts 10–12goals 0–0
- Ribeiro – Smith – Jarnkrok10:22
xG 0.10–0.35 (23%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestJackman – Ellis13:20
xG 0.72–0.12 (85%)attempts 16–8goals 0–0
- Ellis – Ekholm2:58
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Ekholm – Granberg10:49
xG 0.18–0.31 (37%)attempts 6–10goals 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.
NSH's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line NSH is favoured, below it STL. 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, St. Louis Blues win this game 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NSH − STL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).