Mon, Feb 8, 2016·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Anaheim Ducks 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 6
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 55% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 112 | 114 | 012 | 238 |
| PIT | 316 | 110 | 29 | 635 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:38PITChris KunitzAssists: Kris Letang, Sidney Crosby · Tip-in, 0.14 xG0–1
- P1 10:06PITConor ShearyAssists: Kris Letang, Trevor Daley · Tip-in, 0.10 xG0–2
- P1 19:10ANARyan GetzlafUnassisted · Snap, 0.09 xG1–2
- P1 19:43PITCarl HagelinGWGAssists: Phil Kessel, Brian Dumoulin · Backhand, 0.17 xG1–3
- P2 15:01PITSidney CrosbyUnassisted · Snap, 0.18 xG1–4
- P2 18:54ANAPatrick MaroonAssists: Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf · Snap, 0.08 xG2–4
- P3 3:35PITSidney CrosbyAssists: Chris Kunitz · Snap, 0.17 xG2–5
- P3 6:47PITOlli MaattaAssists: Sidney Crosby, Patric Hornqvist · Wrist, 0.12 xG2–6
Penalties (4)
- P1 19:58PITKris Letang: Boarding2 min
- P2 5:15ANARyan Getzlaf: Tripping2 min
- P3 7:43ANAChris Stewart: Misconduct10 min
- P3 9:56PITChris Kunitz: 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 20:00Crosby won the faceoff against Kesler
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg10:17
xG 0.28–0.11 (72%)attempts 7–5goals 0–0
- Perry – Maroon – Rakell10:41
xG 0.71–0.69 (51%)attempts 11–10goals 0–3
- Getzlaf – Stewart – Perron10:19
xG 0.66–0.67 (50%)attempts 17–11goals 1–1
- Thompson – Santorelli – Garbutt7:20
xG 0.14–0.31 (32%)attempts 8–7goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestManson – Lindholm14:13
xG 0.51–0.37 (58%)attempts 15–9goals 0–1
- Despres – Manson2:12
xG 0.13–0.10 (58%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
- Despres – Vatanen16:01
xG 0.63–1.01 (38%)attempts 18–21goals 0–2
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Crosby – Hornqvist12:18
xG 1.74–0.68 (72%)attempts 21–18goals 4–0
- Porter – Wilson – Sheary10:26
xG 0.41–0.35 (54%)attempts 12–13goals 1–0
- Rust – Kuhnhackl – Sundqvist12:14
xG 0.27–0.28 (49%)attempts 8–5goals 0–0
- Cullen – Kessel – Hagelin10:33
xG 0.42–0.48 (46%)attempts 10–8goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Maatta16:59
xG 1.32–0.81 (62%)attempts 18–19goals 3–0
- Letang – Pouliot2:10
xG 0.22–0.00 (100%)attempts 6–0goals 0–0
- Lovejoy – Pouliot11:40
xG 0.25–0.46 (35%)attempts 11–17goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it ANA. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 55% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).