Tue, Mar 29, 2016·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
San Jose Sharks 4, Vancouver Canucks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 80% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 07 | 212 | 212 | 431 |
| VAN | 013 | 15 | 06 | 124 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 0:20SJSJoe PavelskiAssists: Brent Burns, Joe Thornton · Wrist, 0.40 xG1–0
- P2 6:21VANChris HigginsSHUnassisted · Wrist, 0.04 xG1–1
- P2 19:49SJSLogan CoutureGWGAssists: Nick Spaling · Wrist, 0.17 xG2–1
- P3 14:01SJSLogan CouturePPAssists: Joe Pavelski, Patrick Marleau · Wrist, 0.11 xG3–1
- P3 19:43SJSLogan CoutureENAssists: Brent Burns, Dainius Zubrus · Wrist, 0.59 xG4–1
Penalties (9)
- P1 6:45SJSRoman Polak: Interference2 min
- P1 15:12VANAndrey Pedan: Fighting5 min
- P1 15:12SJSMicheal Haley: Fighting5 min
- P2 2:01VANJake Virtanen: Interference5 min
- P2 2:01VANJake Virtanen: Game misconduct10 min
- P3 0:46SJSJustin Braun: Hooking2 min
- P3 13:00VANMatt Bartkowski: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P3 13:17VANMarkus Granlund: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P3 15:31VANDaniel Sedin: Boarding2 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 20:00Thornton won the faceoff against Sedin
- 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.
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestCouture – Spaling – Donskoi8:14
xG 0.83–0.08 (91%)attempts 8–5goals 1–0
- Thornton – Pavelski – Hertl10:48
xG 0.56–0.45 (55%)attempts 9–7goals 1–0
- Zubrus – Haley – Tierney7:11
xG 0.10–0.23 (31%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
- Marleau – Wingels – Karlsson8:55
xG 0.23–0.45 (34%)attempts 4–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBraun – DeMelo10:10
xG 0.69–0.24 (74%)attempts 7–7goals 1–0
- Martin – Burns14:10
xG 0.94–0.63 (60%)attempts 14–15goals 1–0
- Polak – Dillon13:58
xG 0.15–0.35 (30%)attempts 5–11goals 0–0
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestBurrows – Gaunce – McCann4:59
xG 0.46–0.04 (91%)attempts 8–1goals 0–0
- Higgins – Etem – Horvat7:51
xG 0.21–0.14 (60%)attempts 9–4goals 0–0
- Granlund – Baertschi – Virtanen3:52
xG 0.02–0.39 (5%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Hansen11:31
xG 0.30–0.70 (30%)attempts 10–11goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestWeber – Hutton2:05
xG 0.31–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–0goals 0–0
- Hamhuis – Biega2:20
xG 0.08–0.01 (85%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Hamhuis – Weber11:20
xG 0.59–0.55 (52%)attempts 11–8goals 0–1
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.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN is favoured, below it SJS. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 80% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).