Thu, Mar 24, 2016·Gila River Arena, Glendale
Dallas Stars 1, Arizona Coyotes 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Arizona Coyotes win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAL | 113 | 011 | 014 | 138 |
| ARI | 113 | 19 | 18 | 330 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 14:11ARITobias RiederAssists: Connor Murphy, Brad Richardson · Slap, 0.02 xG0–1
- P1 14:20DALAles HemskyAssists: Antoine Roussel · Wrist, 0.16 xG1–1
- P2 0:55ARIOliver Ekman-LarssonGWGAssists: Michael Stone, Anthony Duclair · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–2
- P3 7:51ARIMartin HanzalSHAssists: Klas Dahlbeck, Max Domi · Slap, 0.29 xG1–3
Penalties (9)
- P1 0:50ARIAnthony Duclair: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P1 4:57DALCody Eakin: Slashing2 min
- P1 10:37DALPatrick Eaves: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P1 18:50DALJamie Benn: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P2 5:16DALPatrick Eaves: Holding2 min
- P2 10:19DALAntoine Roussel: Roughing2 min
- P2 11:23ARIOliver Ekman-Larsson: Hooking2 min
- P3 1:26DALAles Hemsky: Tripping2 min
- P3 6:07ARIJiri Sekac: Too many men on the ice2 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 Eakin
- 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.
Dallas Stars
Forward lines
- bestSpezza – Hemsky – Benn2:23
xG 0.47–0.04 (92%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Hemsky – Roussel – Faksa5:57
xG 0.37–0.20 (64%)attempts 10–12goals 1–0
- Fiddler – Sceviour – Ritchie5:18
xG 0.11–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Sharp – Benn – Eakin7:01
xG 0.26–0.23 (53%)attempts 10–7goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestGoligoski – Klingberg9:04
xG 0.86–0.16 (84%)attempts 22–12goals 0–0
- Nemeth – Klingberg4:29
xG 0.30–0.03 (92%)attempts 9–2goals 0–0
- Benn – Nemeth3:31
xG 0.18–0.00 (100%)attempts 8–0goals 0–0
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestHanzal – Domi – Sekac2:27
xG 0.12–0.01 (92%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Doan – Richardson – Rieder8:26
xG 0.39–0.29 (57%)attempts 10–10goals 1–0
- Tanguay – Vermette – Sekac4:49
xG 0.18–0.10 (65%)attempts 5–5goals 0–0
- Hanzal – Duclair – Domi5:13
xG 0.15–0.13 (52%)attempts 4–8goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- Michalek – Dahlbeck10:18
xG 0.37–0.39 (49%)attempts 18–13goals 0–1
- Stone – Connauton10:38
xG 0.24–0.49 (33%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
- Ekman-Larsson – Murphy12:43
xG 0.56–0.84 (40%)attempts 15–17goals 1–0
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.
ARI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ARI is favoured, below it DAL. 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, Arizona Coyotes win this game 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ARI − DAL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).