Sat, Nov 26, 2016·SAP Center at San Jose, San Jose
Anaheim Ducks 3, San Jose Sharks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 63% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 27 | 110 | 09 | 326 |
| SJS | 19 | 19 | 05 | 223 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 8:40SJSLogan CouturePPAssists: Patrick Marleau, Joe Pavelski · Wrist, 0.03 xG0–1
- P1 9:44ANARyan GarbuttUnassisted · Wrist, 0.21 xG1–1
- P1 13:21ANARickard RakellAssists: Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf · Backhand, 0.14 xG2–1
- P2 9:43SJSDylan DeMeloAssists: Kevin Labanc, David Schlemko · Slap, 0.02 xG2–2
- P2 12:59ANARyan GetzlafPPGWGAssists: Ryan Kesler, Corey Perry · Wrist, 0.11 xG3–2
Penalties (4)
- P1 0:55ANACorey Perry: Interference2 min
- P1 7:57ANAHampus Lindholm: Delaying game puck over glass2 min · PPG
- P1 18:47ANARyan Garbutt: Tripping2 min
- P2 12:28SJSJustin Braun: Elbowing2 min · PPG
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 20:00Getzlaf won the faceoff against Thornton
- 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
- bestBoll – Garbutt – Shaw4:46
xG 0.51–0.09 (86%)attempts 5–5goals 1–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Rakell14:13
xG 0.64–0.37 (64%)attempts 15–14goals 1–1
- Kesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg11:34
xG 0.22–0.36 (38%)attempts 12–12goals 0–0
- Vermette – Ritchie – Kase10:42
xG 0.02–0.16 (10%)attempts 5–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Fowler5:04
xG 0.49–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–1goals 0–0
- Manson – Lindholm16:36
xG 0.50–0.10 (84%)attempts 22–7goals 0–0
- Bieksa – Holzer11:29
xG 0.35–0.31 (53%)attempts 6–20goals 1–1
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- Nieto – Tierney – Labanc4:52
xG 0.00–0.08 (0%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Boedker – Nieto – Tierney7:02
xG 0.02–0.12 (16%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Haley – Carpenter – Labanc6:21
xG 0.14–0.28 (33%)attempts 8–4goals 1–1
- Thornton – Marleau – Pavelski15:37
xG 0.63–0.78 (45%)attempts 16–18goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestSchlemko – DeMelo9:05
xG 0.21–0.05 (81%)attempts 12–6goals 1–0
- Braun – DeMelo2:26
xG 0.09–0.02 (78%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Burns – Schlemko2:30
xG 0.05–0.06 (48%)attempts 2–2goals 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.
SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 63% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).