Sat, Nov 12, 2016·Gila River Arena, Glendale
Boston Bruins 2, Arizona Coyotes 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Boston Bruins win this game 54% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOS | 010 | 212 | 07 | 229 |
| ARI | 09 | 08 | 115 | 132 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:54BOSRyan SpoonerAssists: Zdeno Chara, David Krejci · Snap, 0.07 xG1–0
- P2 9:44BOSDavid PastrnakGWGAssists: Brad Marchand, Torey Krug · Wrist, 0.03 xG2–0
- P3 12:05ARIRadim VrbataPPAssists: Tony DeAngelo, Oliver Ekman-Larsson · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 1:44BOSDavid Backes: Interference2 min
- P3 5:47BOSPatrice Bergeron: Hooking2 min
- P3 7:32ARIBrad Richardson: Fighting5 min
- P3 7:32BOSBrandon Carlo: Fighting5 min · PPG
- P3 11:13BOSDavid Backes: 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 20:00Bergeron won the faceoff against Richardson
- 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.
Boston Bruins
Forward lines
- bestBeleskey – Nash – Czarnik10:37
xG 0.55–0.12 (82%)attempts 15–6goals 0–0
- Bergeron – Marchand – Pastrnak12:52
xG 0.81–0.42 (66%)attempts 18–11goals 1–0
- Backes – Krejci – Spooner13:23
xG 0.46–0.52 (47%)attempts 11–15goals 1–0
- Moore – Hayes – Schaller8:27
xG 0.03–0.16 (15%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMcQuaid – Krug15:16
xG 0.86–0.34 (72%)attempts 14–16goals 1–0
- Liles – Miller14:44
xG 0.77–0.33 (70%)attempts 21–11goals 0–0
- Chara – Carlo17:38
xG 0.35–0.77 (32%)attempts 16–18goals 1–0
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestDuclair – Domi – Dvorak6:22
xG 0.40–0.29 (58%)attempts 8–9goals 0–0
- Vrbata – Martinook – Domi3:26
xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Vrbata – McGinn – Martinook6:58
xG 0.13–0.10 (58%)attempts 6–4goals 0–1
- White – Dauphin – Crouse8:08
xG 0.19–0.30 (39%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Stone – Ekman-Larsson18:08
xG 0.60–0.58 (51%)attempts 20–16goals 0–1
- Goligoski – DeAngelo16:09
xG 0.53–0.82 (39%)attempts 14–18goals 0–0
- Murphy – Chychrun15:02
xG 0.27–0.63 (30%)attempts 10–18goals 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.
ARI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ARI is favoured, below it BOS. 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, Boston Bruins win this game 54% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ARI − BOS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).