Tue, Mar 8, 2016·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Boston Bruins 1, Tampa Bay Lightning 0 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOS | 011 | 011 | 010 | 11 | 133 |
| TBL | 08 | 019 | 015 | 00 | 042 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- OT 0:10BOSBrad MarchandGWGAssists: Patrice Bergeron, Torey Krug · Wrist, 0.15 xG1–0
Penalties (6)
- P1 8:16TBLBrian Boyle: Roughing2 min
- P1 8:16BOSJimmy Hayes: Roughing2 min
- P1 16:26BOSZdeno Chara: High sticking2 min
- P2 3:36BOSNoel Acciari: Slashing2 min
- P2 12:56BOSAdam McQuaid: Hooking2 min
- P3 10:29BOSDavid Pastrnak: Delaying game puck over glass2 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 Filppula
- 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
- bestBergeron – Stempniak – Marchand10:27
xG 0.55–0.30 (65%)attempts 10–12goals 0–0
- Beleskey – Hayes – Spooner12:42
xG 0.43–0.43 (50%)attempts 15–13goals 0–0
- Ferraro – Connolly – Acciari4:32
xG 0.00–0.06 (0%)attempts 0–6goals 0–0
- Eriksson – Krejci – Pastrnak13:05
xG 0.09–0.42 (17%)attempts 2–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMcQuaid – Krug16:04
xG 0.58–0.48 (55%)attempts 10–19goals 0–0
- Chara – Liles14:45
xG 0.36–0.45 (45%)attempts 13–21goals 0–0
- Seidenberg – Morrow9:48
xG 0.21–0.37 (36%)attempts 6–11goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestBoyle – Namestnikov – Marchessault7:25
xG 0.22–0.03 (87%)attempts 9–1goals 0–0
- Callahan – Killorn – Stamkos13:19
xG 0.40–0.45 (47%)attempts 18–7goals 0–0
- Filppula – Brown – Paquette10:56
xG 0.38–0.45 (46%)attempts 14–10goals 0–0
- Johnson – Palat – Kucherov10:36
xG 0.39–0.65 (37%)attempts 14–17goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestGarrison – Sustr16:59
xG 0.50–0.27 (65%)attempts 19–6goals 0–0
- Carle – Koekkoek9:14
xG 0.38–0.24 (62%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Hedman – Nesterov14:03
xG 0.51–0.73 (41%)attempts 20–12goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − BOS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).