Thu, Feb 25, 2016·United Center, Chicago
Nashville Predators 3, Chicago Blackhawks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 54% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSH | 09 | 113 | 210 | 332 |
| CHI | 013 | 116 | 010 | 139 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 5:27CHIBrent SeabrookAssists: Jiri Sekac, Erik Gustafsson · Slap, 0.10 xG0–1
- P2 9:08NSHViktor ArvidssonAssists: Mike Fisher · Wrist, 0.25 xG1–1
- P3 18:09NSHCalle JarnkrokGWGAssists: Mike Fisher · Snap, 0.13 xG2–1
- P3 18:57NSHMiikka SalomakiENAssists: Ryan Ellis · Wrist, 0.41 xG3–1
Penalties (4)
- P1 4:39NSHFilip Forsberg: Holding2 min
- P1 16:03CHITrevor van Riemsdyk: Hooking2 min
- P2 0:43CHIArtemi Panarin: Roughing2 min
- P2 0:43NSHPetter Granberg: Roughing2 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 20:00Toews 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.
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestFisher – Wilson – Arvidsson7:25
xG 0.39–0.28 (58%)attempts 8–13goals 1–0
- Neal – Jarnkrok – Johansen10:34
xG 0.37–0.31 (55%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
- Gaustad – Watson – Salomaki9:45
xG 0.25–0.22 (53%)attempts 5–12goals 0–0
- Ribeiro – Smith – Forsberg10:07
xG 0.11–0.30 (26%)attempts 9–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestJackman – Bitetto10:03
xG 0.60–0.39 (60%)attempts 13–13goals 1–1
- Ekholm – Granberg15:57
xG 0.65–0.53 (55%)attempts 17–17goals 0–0
- Josi – Ellis20:23
xG 0.48–0.63 (43%)attempts 15–21goals 1–0
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestAnisimov – Kane – Panarin12:24
xG 0.70–0.07 (91%)attempts 18–5goals 0–0
- Mashinter – Panik – Danault4:30
xG 0.16–0.11 (59%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
- Desjardins – Teravainen – Rasmussen7:56
xG 0.12–0.10 (55%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Toews – Shaw – Sekac10:24
xG 0.38–0.38 (50%)attempts 11–10goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestSeabrook – Gustafsson12:46
xG 0.56–0.28 (67%)attempts 20–7goals 1–0
- Keith – Hjalmarsson17:43
xG 0.69–0.62 (53%)attempts 16–17goals 0–1
- Rozsival – Gustafsson2:00
xG 0.15–0.08 (65%)attempts 4–1goals 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 NSH. 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 54% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − NSH), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).