Tue, Feb 9, 2016·United Center, Chicago
San Jose Sharks 2, Chicago Blackhawks 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 53% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 08 | 113 | 16 | 227 |
| CHI | 010 | 012 | 011 | 033 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 9:09SJSPatrick MarleauPPGWGAssists: Logan Couture, Joe Thornton · Slap, 0.04 xG1–0
- P3 18:18SJSJoe ThorntonENAssists: Joe Pavelski, Marc-Edouard Vlasic · Wrist, 0.49 xG2–0
Penalties (4)
- P1 10:03SJSJoel Ward: Hooking2 min
- P1 18:32SJSPaul Martin: Holding2 min
- P2 8:30CHINiklas Hjalmarsson: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P2 19:38SJSChris Tierney: Tripping2 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 20:00Couture won the faceoff against Anisimov
- 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
- bestMarleau – Ward – Nieto11:04
xG 0.47–0.26 (64%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Zubrus – Tierney – Karlsson7:13
xG 0.16–0.17 (48%)attempts 9–4goals 0–0
- Couture – Wingels – Donskoi11:09
xG 0.05–0.14 (27%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
- Thornton – Pavelski – Hertl14:08
xG 0.82–0.94 (47%)attempts 16–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMartin – Braun3:56
xG 0.28–0.04 (87%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Martin – DeMelo5:27
xG 0.39–0.20 (66%)attempts 8–5goals 0–0
- Martin – Burns12:18
xG 0.30–0.26 (53%)attempts 8–12goals 0–0
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestHossa – Toews – Shaw12:36
xG 0.94–0.35 (73%)attempts 17–9goals 0–0
- Mashinter – Rasmussen – Sekac6:13
xG 0.31–0.28 (53%)attempts 5–6goals 0–0
- Desjardins – Panik – Danault7:24
xG 0.21–0.24 (47%)attempts 6–11goals 0–0
- Anisimov – Kane – Teravainen8:53
xG 0.03–0.12 (18%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRozsival – van Riemsdyk11:24
xG 0.67–0.14 (82%)attempts 9–12goals 0–0
- Hjalmarsson – van Riemsdyk2:35
xG 0.16–0.01 (93%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Rozsival – Keith3:25
xG 0.10–0.25 (29%)attempts 5–2goals 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.
CHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CHI 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 53% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).