Thu, Feb 18, 2016·Bridgestone Arena, Nashville
Boston Bruins 0, Nashville Predators 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 65% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOS | 010 | 09 | 010 | 029 |
| NSH | 213 | 07 | 04 | 224 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:51NSHCraig SmithGWGAssists: Filip Forsberg, Mike Ribeiro · Snap, 0.10 xG0–1
- P1 14:37NSHFilip ForsbergAssists: Mattias Ekholm, Mike Ribeiro · Wrist, 0.17 xG0–2
Penalties (6)
- P1 19:35NSHMiikka Salomaki: High sticking2 min
- P2 4:18BOSJimmy Hayes: Slashing2 min
- P2 16:26BOSJimmy Hayes: Hooking2 min
- P3 1:06NSHCraig Smith: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 5:54NSHMattias Ekholm: Holding2 min
- P3 16:31NSHMattias Ekholm: Cross checking2 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 20:00Bergeron won the faceoff against Johansen
- 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.
Boston Bruins
Forward lines
- Krejci – Beleskey – Pastrnak8:29
xG 0.21–0.22 (49%)attempts 9–4goals 0–0
- Ferraro – Randell – Kemppainen3:57
xG 0.02–0.05 (28%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
- Bergeron – Marchand – Connolly12:12
xG 0.28–0.33 (46%)attempts 12–7goals 0–1
- Eriksson – Krejci – Pastrnak3:44
xG 0.02–0.08 (20%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestChara – Miller3:00
xG 0.27–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- McQuaid – Krug9:28
xG 0.22–0.21 (52%)attempts 10–3goals 0–0
- Seidenberg – Trotman2:36
xG 0.03–0.03 (49%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestRibeiro – Smith – Forsberg7:12
xG 0.81–0.09 (90%)attempts 16–7goals 2–0
- Gaustad – Watson – Salomaki7:33
xG 0.20–0.01 (94%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
- Fisher – Wilson – Arvidsson10:36
xG 0.19–0.30 (39%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
- Neal – Jarnkrok – Johansen9:19
xG 0.04–0.26 (12%)attempts 4–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEllis – Ekholm16:55
xG 1.24–0.24 (84%)attempts 19–14goals 2–0
- Weber – Josi18:52
xG 0.52–0.37 (59%)attempts 19–15goals 0–0
- Jackman – Bitetto9:10
xG 0.20–0.22 (48%)attempts 4–9goals 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 BOS. 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, Nashville Predators win this game 65% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NSH − BOS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).