Sat, Oct 15, 2016·PPG Paints Arena, Pittsburgh
Anaheim Ducks 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 53% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 116 | 16 | 014 | 236 |
| PIT | 121 | 213 | 011 | 345 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 11:46PITIan ColeAssists: Trevor Daley, Evgeni Malkin · Wrist, 0.01 xG0–1
- P1 14:13ANACam FowlerPPAssists: Ryan Getzlaf, Ryan Kesler · Slap, 0.12 xG1–1
- P2 2:03PITConor ShearyAssists: Chris Kunitz, Matt Cullen · Wrist, 0.14 xG1–2
- P2 7:58PITPhil KesselPPGWGAssists: Patric Hornqvist · Wrist, 0.17 xG1–3
- P2 10:27ANACorey PerryAssists: Ryan Getzlaf · Wrist, 0.25 xG2–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 12:52PITOlli Maatta: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P1 12:56PITIan Cole: Delaying game2 min
- P1 17:12ANANick Ritchie: Holding2 min
- P2 4:49ANANick Ritchie: Holding2 min
- P2 7:30ANARyan Getzlaf: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 17:47PITIan Cole: 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 20:00Malkin won the faceoff against Getzlaf
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Perry – Ritchie16:25
xG 0.97–0.64 (60%)attempts 16–14goals 1–0
- Kesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg11:49
xG 0.50–0.32 (61%)attempts 12–11goals 0–0
- Raymond – Boll – Wagner4:14
xG 0.22–0.15 (60%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Vermette – Raymond – Sorensen3:39
xG 0.24–0.21 (52%)attempts 7–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestFowler – Manson13:31
xG 1.14–0.24 (83%)attempts 19–10goals 1–1
- Bieksa – Vatanen14:10
xG 0.61–0.48 (56%)attempts 13–11goals 0–0
- Bieksa – Fowler2:14
xG 0.01–0.05 (10%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestCullen – Kunitz – Sheary6:00
xG 0.83–0.25 (77%)attempts 11–4goals 1–0
- Cullen – Hornqvist – Wilson2:24
xG 0.22–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Cullen – Fehr – Kuhnhackl3:21
xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Kessel – Bonino – Hagelin12:19
xG 0.35–0.35 (50%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Schultz11:12
xG 0.75–0.42 (64%)attempts 13–14goals 0–0
- Daley – Maatta14:16
xG 0.33–0.53 (38%)attempts 8–16goals 1–0
- Letang – Dumoulin19:48
xG 0.64–1.33 (32%)attempts 14–24goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it ANA. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 53% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).