Fri, Apr 1, 2016·Honda Center, Anaheim
Vancouver Canucks 3, Anaheim Ducks 2
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 76% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 09 | 113 | 26 | 328 |
| ANA | 18 | 08 | 120 | 236 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 0:48ANAJosh MansonAssists: Jakob Silfverberg, Andrew Cogliano · Wrist, 0.24 xG0–1
- P2 4:22VANBo HorvatAssists: Jannik Hansen · Wrist, 0.11 xG1–1
- P3 8:42ANANate ThompsonAssists: Chris Wagner · Tip-in, 0.25 xG1–2
- P3 11:02VANDan HamhuisAssists: Henrik Sedin, Jannik Hansen · Wrist, 0.05 xG2–2
- P3 13:23VANEmerson EtemGWGAssists: Alex Biega, Bo Horvat · Wrist, 0.14 xG3–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 4:44ANACorey Perry: Tripping2 min
- P1 17:18ANARyan Kesler: Slashing2 min
- P2 10:07VANNikita Tryamkin: Roughing2 min
- P2 10:07ANAChris Stewart: Roughing2 min
- P2 19:24VANAlex Biega: Holding2 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 20:00Sedin won the faceoff against Kesler
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestHiggins – Etem – Horvat5:46
xG 0.28–0.05 (84%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
- Vey – Granlund – McCann6:56
xG 0.31–0.19 (62%)attempts 9–4goals 0–0
- Etem – Gaunce – Horvat6:28
xG 0.38–0.59 (39%)attempts 5–8goals 1–1
- Burrows – Granlund – McCann5:04
xG 0.18–0.43 (29%)attempts 5–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Biega – Bartkowski15:23
xG 0.64–0.70 (47%)attempts 14–13goals 2–0
- Hutton – Tryamkin12:12
xG 0.50–0.77 (40%)attempts 12–12goals 0–0
- Hamhuis – Tanev14:34
xG 0.58–1.22 (32%)attempts 16–14goals 1–2
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg12:47
xG 1.07–0.26 (80%)attempts 15–11goals 1–1
- Thompson – Wagner – Garbutt8:12
xG 0.69–0.11 (86%)attempts 12–3goals 1–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – McGinn13:38
xG 0.80–0.68 (54%)attempts 11–16goals 0–1
- Horcoff – Stewart – Pirri4:32
xG 0.06–0.34 (14%)attempts 2–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestStoner – Vatanen13:16
xG 0.57–0.16 (79%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- Holzer – Theodore2:10
xG 0.41–0.09 (82%)attempts 4–3goals 1–0
- Holzer – Fowler11:45
xG 0.66–0.41 (61%)attempts 10–10goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it VAN. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 76% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).