Tue, Feb 2, 2016·Pepsi Center, Denver
Chicago Blackhawks 2, Colorado Avalanche 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 76% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 214 | 015 | 013 | 242 |
| COL | 16 | 02 | 015 | 123 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:57CHIRichard PanikAssists: Andrew Shaw, Viktor Svedberg · Wrist, 0.24 xG1–0
- P1 7:16CHIArtemi PanarinGWGAssists: Patrick Kane, Duncan Keith · Backhand, 0.13 xG2–0
- P1 9:59COLGabriel LandeskogAssists: Blake Comeau, Erik Johnson · Wrist, 0.07 xG2–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 3:15CHIBrent Seabrook: Tripping2 min
- P1 17:40CHITeuvo Teravainen: Hooking2 min
- P2 5:42COLErik Johnson: Slashing2 min
- P2 18:18COLMatt Duchene: Hooking2 min
- P3 14:40COLZach Redmond: High sticking2 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 20:00Teravainen won the faceoff against Mitchell
- 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.
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestAnisimov – Kane – Panarin12:40
xG 0.78–0.21 (79%)attempts 16–9goals 0–1
- Hossa – Desjardins – Danault3:19
xG 0.56–0.00 (100%)attempts 9–1goals 0–0
- Panik – Shaw – Teravainen3:49
xG 0.45–0.01 (97%)attempts 8–2goals 1–0
- Hossa – Shaw – Teravainen6:33
xG 0.60–0.19 (76%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSvedberg – van Riemsdyk12:33
xG 1.15–0.11 (91%)attempts 22–5goals 1–0
- Keith – Hjalmarsson18:05
xG 1.17–0.17 (87%)attempts 26–12goals 0–0
- Seabrook – Gustafsson13:20
xG 0.57–1.19 (32%)attempts 20–13goals 0–1
Colorado Avalanche
Forward lines
- bestTanguay – Wagner – Grigorenko8:26
xG 1.07–0.40 (73%)attempts 9–15goals 0–1
- Comeau – Soderberg – Landeskog9:26
xG 0.18–0.56 (25%)attempts 9–13goals 1–0
- Mitchell – McLeod – Skille10:07
xG 0.01–0.77 (2%)attempts 2–13goals 0–1
- Iginla – Duchene – MacKinnon12:32
xG 0.04–1.16 (4%)attempts 5–23goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRedmond – Bigras12:42
xG 1.07–0.86 (56%)attempts 10–20goals 0–0
- Holden – Barrie14:17
xG 0.37–1.15 (24%)attempts 13–19goals 0–1
- Beauchemin – Johnson15:30
xG 0.12–1.42 (8%)attempts 9–30goals 1–1
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.
COL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line COL is favoured, below it CHI. 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, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 76% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (COL − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).