Tue, Feb 23, 2016·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Arizona Coyotes 1, Tampa Bay Lightning 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 80% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARI | 08 | 010 | 112 | 130 |
| TBL | 118 | 110 | 08 | 236 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 12:38TBLSteven StamkosAssists: Ryan Callahan, Alex Killorn · Backhand, 0.19 xG0–1
- P2 19:55TBLCedric PaquetteGWGUnassisted · Wrist, 0.27 xG0–2
- P3 4:06ARIJordan MartinookAssists: Michael Stone, Shane Doan · Tip-in, 0.01 xG1–2
Penalties (7)
- P1 16:49ARIMax Domi: Hooking2 min
- P2 15:07ARIShane Doan: Holding2 min
- P2 16:58TBLOndrej Palat: High sticking2 min
- P2 16:58TBLOndrej Palat: High sticking2 min
- P2 19:55ARIShane Doan: Penalty shot hooking on breakaway0 min
- P3 1:10ARIMartin Hanzal: Tripping2 min
- P3 1:10TBLTyler Johnson: Embellishment2 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 20:00Richardson won the faceoff against Johnson
- 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.
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestBoedker – Rieder – Martinook6:54
xG 0.22–0.07 (75%)attempts 7–10goals 0–0
- Hanzal – Duclair – Domi13:41
xG 0.32–0.30 (51%)attempts 13–13goals 0–0
- Doan – Richardson – Martinook3:03
xG 0.03–0.12 (19%)attempts 4–5goals 1–0
- Vermette – Boedker – Rieder4:44
xG 0.00–0.11 (2%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestStone – Connauton16:06
xG 0.55–0.50 (52%)attempts 21–21goals 1–0
- Michalek – Dahlbeck9:43
xG 0.18–0.31 (37%)attempts 10–9goals 0–1
- Ekman-Larsson – Murphy19:25
xG 0.17–0.56 (23%)attempts 10–24goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestJohnson – Palat – Marchessault9:41
xG 0.39–0.12 (77%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Boyle – Condra – Namestnikov5:50
xG 0.25–0.16 (62%)attempts 12–4goals 0–0
- Filppula – Brown – Paquette11:12
xG 0.18–0.15 (55%)attempts 12–10goals 0–1
- Callahan – Killorn – Stamkos11:22
xG 0.33–0.34 (49%)attempts 12–12goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestCarle – Sustr14:03
xG 0.50–0.22 (69%)attempts 17–14goals 0–0
- Coburn – Nesterov9:54
xG 0.30–0.16 (65%)attempts 9–9goals 1–0
- Stralman – Hedman14:58
xG 0.54–0.46 (54%)attempts 21–11goals 0–1
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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it ARI. 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 80% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − ARI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).