Thu, Nov 10, 2016·PPG Paints Arena, Pittsburgh
Minnesota Wild 4, Pittsburgh Penguins 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 115 | 116 | 213 | 444 |
| PIT | 110 | 115 | 016 | 241 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:53PITSidney CrosbyPPAssists: Phil Kessel, Kris Letang · Tip-in, 0.10 xG0–1
- P1 18:09MINCharlie CoylePPAssists: Ryan Suter, Eric Staal · Tip-in, 0.18 xG1–1
- P2 7:33PITPatric HornqvistPPAssists: Phil Kessel, Evgeni Malkin · Wrist, 0.14 xG1–2
- P2 9:07MINNino NiederreiterAssists: Eric Staal · Wrist, 0.14 xG2–2
- P3 2:56MINEric StaalGWGAssists: Charlie Coyle, Nino Niederreiter · Backhand, 0.22 xG3–2
- P3 19:30MINJason PominvilleENAssists: Jared Spurgeon · Wrist, 0.50 xG4–2
Penalties (7)
- P1 6:55MINChris Stewart: Too many men on the ice2 min · PPG
- P1 16:44PITTrevor Daley: Delaying game puck over glass2 min · PPG
- P2 6:00MINDevan Dubnyk: Delaying game2 min · PPG
- P2 10:40MINJoel Eriksson Ek: High sticking2 min
- P2 18:45PITChris Kunitz: Slashing2 min
- P2 19:30PITOlli Maatta: Tripping2 min
- P3 11:59MINNino Niederreiter: High sticking2 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 20:00Staal won the faceoff against Crosby
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestHaula – Zucker – Mitchell8:50
xG 0.43–0.17 (72%)attempts 10–5goals 0–0
- Koivu – Pominville – Granlund12:06
xG 0.53–0.33 (62%)attempts 14–14goals 0–0
- Staal – Coyle – Niederreiter12:21
xG 0.61–0.64 (49%)attempts 16–13goals 2–0
- Stewart – Graovac – Eriksson Ek6:23
xG 0.06–0.18 (27%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Spurgeon7:50
xG 0.57–0.19 (75%)attempts 9–9goals 1–0
- Brodin – Folin10:04
xG 0.45–0.10 (82%)attempts 13–4goals 0–0
- Spurgeon – Reilly4:09
xG 0.22–0.18 (56%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestCrosby – Hornqvist – Hagelin11:24
xG 0.61–0.54 (53%)attempts 15–14goals 0–0
- Cullen – Fehr – Wilson5:17
xG 0.20–0.16 (55%)attempts 7–8goals 0–1
- Bonino – Rust – Sheary10:23
xG 0.30–0.29 (51%)attempts 6–10goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Malkin – Kessel13:58
xG 0.27–0.53 (34%)attempts 13–14goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Dumoulin15:33
xG 0.85–0.50 (63%)attempts 20–10goals 0–1
- Cole – Schultz11:01
xG 0.33–0.26 (56%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
- Daley – Cole2:46
xG 0.11–0.10 (53%)attempts 4–4goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).