Sat, Mar 5, 2016·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Calgary Flames 4, Pittsburgh Penguins 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 64% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGY | 18 | 214 | 18 | 430 |
| PIT | 16 | 18 | 017 | 231 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 0:30PITSidney CrosbyAssists: Patric Hornqvist, Carl Hagelin · Wrist, 0.18 xG0–1
- P1 1:58CGYJoe ColborneAssists: Sam Bennett, Jyrki Jokipakka · Tip-in, 0.12 xG1–1
- P2 5:24PITSidney CrosbyAssists: Patric Hornqvist, Brian Dumoulin · Tip-in, 0.13 xG1–2
- P2 6:53CGYMark GiordanoAssists: Mikael Backlund, Josh Jooris · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–2
- P2 15:46CGYMikael BacklundGWGAssists: Dougie Hamilton · Tip-in, 0.13 xG3–2
- P3 14:03CGYLance BoumaAssists: Joe Colborne, Deryk Engelland · Wrist, 0.07 xG4–2
Penalties (4)
- P2 11:42PITTom Kuhnhackl: High sticking double minor4 min
- P3 2:15CGYJyrki Jokipakka: Boarding2 min
- P3 9:36PITPhil Kessel: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 17:26CGYDougie Hamilton: 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
- Press play, or drag along the timeline.
- 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.
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestBacklund – Ferland – Hathaway9:16
xG 0.31–0.04 (88%)attempts 9–10goals 0–0
- Colborne – Bouma – Bennett10:14
xG 0.41–0.35 (54%)attempts 10–8goals 2–1
- Stajan – Bollig – Jooris8:25
xG 0.02–0.15 (14%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
- Frolik – Gaudreau – Monahan13:05
xG 0.13–1.04 (11%)attempts 7–20goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestJokipakka – Nakladal4:40
xG 0.20–0.06 (76%)attempts 4–4goals 1–0
- Brodie – Jokipakka3:38
xG 0.00–0.11 (0%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
- Engelland – Jokipakka2:40
xG 0.00–0.14 (0%)attempts 0–6goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestCrosby – Hornqvist – Hagelin6:20
xG 0.53–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–1goals 1–0
- Kunitz – Crosby – Hornqvist4:34
xG 0.39–0.01 (97%)attempts 12–1goals 0–0
- Bonino – Rust – Wilson6:55
xG 0.33–0.19 (64%)attempts 11–3goals 0–1
- Crosby – Hornqvist – Wilson2:51
xG 0.10–0.08 (56%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Maatta17:17
xG 0.86–0.41 (68%)attempts 20–10goals 1–1
- Daley – Dumoulin11:27
xG 0.34–0.32 (51%)attempts 10–12goals 0–2
- Cole – Pouliot11:44
xG 0.16–0.19 (45%)attempts 11–7goals 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 CGY. 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 64% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − CGY), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).