Thu, Nov 17, 2016·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Boston Bruins 0, Minnesota Wild 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 60% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOS | 09 | 08 | 08 | 025 |
| MIN | 09 | 012 | 18 | 129 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 19:15MINMikael GranlundGWGAssists: Jonas Brodin, Christian Folin · Wrist, 0.04 xG0–1
Penalties (7)
- P1 0:56BOSDavid Backes: Boarding2 min
- P1 0:56MINChristian Folin: Roughing2 min
- P1 5:28MINErik Haula: Hooking2 min
- P1 11:36BOSDavid Krejci: Interference2 min
- P1 17:26BOSJimmy Hayes: Roughing2 min
- P2 3:08BOSSean Kuraly: High sticking2 min
- P2 15:11MINJared Spurgeon: 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
- Press play, or drag along the timeline.
- 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
- bestHayes – Kuraly – Schaller6:24
xG 0.28–0.05 (84%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
- Bergeron – Marchand – Nash12:23
xG 0.48–0.35 (58%)attempts 16–12goals 0–1
- Backes – Krejci – Spooner10:49
xG 0.10–0.22 (31%)attempts 4–14goals 0–0
- Moore – Beleskey – Czarnik8:54
xG 0.02–0.30 (5%)attempts 1–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLiles – Morrow10:32
xG 0.14–0.08 (65%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
- McQuaid – Krug16:10
xG 0.27–0.39 (42%)attempts 9–16goals 0–1
- Chara – Carlo16:54
xG 0.43–0.55 (44%)attempts 14–24goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestStaal – Coyle – Niederreiter9:33
xG 0.17–0.00 (100%)attempts 14–1goals 0–0
- Pominville – Haula – Zucker10:07
xG 0.27–0.21 (56%)attempts 12–5goals 0–0
- Stewart – Graovac – Mitchell7:38
xG 0.06–0.19 (23%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
- Koivu – Parise – Granlund12:36
xG 0.25–0.41 (38%)attempts 12–14goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Spurgeon18:24
xG 0.59–0.23 (72%)attempts 19–10goals 0–0
- Reilly – Dumba8:00
xG 0.17–0.02 (91%)attempts 11–1goals 0–0
- Brodin – Folin17:18
xG 0.29–0.54 (35%)attempts 18–19goals 1–0
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 60% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − BOS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).