Mon, Mar 14, 2016·United Center, Chicago
Los Angeles Kings 5, Chicago Blackhawks 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 66% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAK | 211 | 19 | 25 | 525 |
| CHI | 09 | 07 | 016 | 032 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:17LAKKris VersteegGWGAssists: Brayden McNabb, Luke Schenn · Wrist, 0.33 xG1–0
- P1 3:35LAKMilan LucicAssists: Kris Versteeg, Anze Kopitar · Wrist, 0.06 xG2–0
- P2 15:30LAKVincent LecavalierAssists: Trevor Lewis, Tanner Pearson · Wrist, 0.13 xG3–0
- P3 11:20LAKDustin BrownUnassisted · Backhand, 0.12 xG4–0
- P3 16:10LAKTyler ToffoliAssists: Luke Schenn · Wrist, 0.07 xG5–0
Penalties (8)
- P1 1:00LAKJeff Carter: Hooking2 min
- P1 8:36CHIBrandon Mashinter: High sticking2 min
- P1 13:07LAKBrayden McNabb: High sticking2 min
- P2 2:48LAKBrayden McNabb: High sticking2 min
- P2 3:33CHIArtem Anisimov: Holding2 min
- P2 17:47LAKVincent Lecavalier: Tripping2 min
- P3 6:05LAKAlec Martinez: Hooking2 min
- P3 16:39LAKNicholas Shore: Interference2 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 20:00Carter won the faceoff against Anisimov
- 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.
Los Angeles Kings
Forward lines
- bestVersteeg – Kopitar – Lucic12:01
xG 0.68–0.28 (71%)attempts 13–8goals 2–0
- King – Toffoli – Shore4:23
xG 0.19–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–2goals 1–0
- Lecavalier – Lewis – Pearson3:37
xG 0.20–0.07 (75%)attempts 3–4goals 1–0
- Lecavalier – Brown – Pearson3:10
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMuzzin – Martinez13:22
xG 0.52–0.10 (84%)attempts 17–9goals 1–0
- Schenn – McNabb13:39
xG 0.62–0.38 (62%)attempts 10–16goals 3–0
- Scuderi – Doughty15:17
xG 0.40–0.42 (48%)attempts 11–17goals 1–0
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestWeise – Mashinter – Shaw5:28
xG 0.20–0.02 (89%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Hossa – Toews – Panarin4:43
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 0–0goals 0–0
- Hossa – Ladd – Toews5:43
xG 0.19–0.20 (48%)attempts 7–7goals 0–1
- Ladd – Anisimov – Kane3:36
xG 0.18–0.23 (45%)attempts 6–2goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Seabrook – Gustafsson2:37
xG 0.02–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Hjalmarsson – van Riemsdyk2:01
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 0–0goals 0–0
- Seabrook – van Riemsdyk2:57
xG 0.04–0.05 (46%)attempts 1–6goals 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 LAK. 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, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 66% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − LAK), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).