Fri, Dec 9, 2016·Honda Center, Anaheim
San Jose Sharks 2, Anaheim Ducks 3
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 72% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 110 | 18 | 06 | 224 |
| ANA | 213 | 09 | 110 | 332 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:44ANARickard RakellAssists: Shea Theodore, Corey Perry · Wrist, 0.26 xG0–1
- P1 15:06ANAAntoine VermetteAssists: Shea Theodore, Nick Ritchie · Wrist, 0.09 xG0–2
- P1 19:54SJSBrent BurnsAssists: Patrick Marleau, Joe Pavelski · Slap, 0.09 xG1–2
- P2 8:40SJSKevin LabancAssists: Logan Couture, Joel Ward · Snap, 0.13 xG2–2
- P3 14:22ANAHampus LindholmGWGAssists: Nick Ritchie, Ryan Kesler · Snap, 0.06 xG2–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 15:13ANAJoseph Cramarossa: Fighting5 min
- P1 15:13SJSTommy Wingels: Fighting5 min
- P1 17:53ANARickard Rakell: Hooking2 min
- P2 2:57SJSTommy Wingels: Holding2 min
- P2 11:47SJSJoel Ward: High sticking2 min
- P3 19:38SJSDylan DeMelo: Tripping2 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 20:00Pavelski won the faceoff against Kesler
- 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.
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestThornton – Marleau – Pavelski13:59
xG 0.89–0.50 (64%)attempts 24–12goals 1–0
- Ward – Couture – Labanc12:11
xG 0.32–0.27 (55%)attempts 9–6goals 1–1
- Boedker – Donskoi – Tierney11:48
xG 0.33–0.37 (47%)attempts 11–4goals 0–1
- Haley – Wingels – Karlsson5:44
xG 0.21–0.34 (38%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestVlasic – Braun16:12
xG 0.81–0.19 (81%)attempts 18–5goals 1–0
- Burns – Dillon4:03
xG 0.44–0.41 (52%)attempts 12–5goals 0–1
- Martin – Burns14:11
xG 0.50–0.75 (40%)attempts 15–12goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg13:21
xG 1.04–0.63 (62%)attempts 12–17goals 0–0
- Cramarossa – Shaw – Noesen7:18
xG 0.38–0.34 (53%)attempts 5–9goals 0–0
- Vermette – Ritchie – Kase12:10
xG 0.28–0.42 (41%)attempts 8–10goals 1–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Rakell13:28
xG 0.19–0.33 (37%)attempts 7–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Theodore12:10
xG 0.98–0.39 (71%)attempts 14–8goals 2–1
- Manson – Lindholm15:35
xG 0.85–0.37 (70%)attempts 14–10goals 1–0
- Vatanen – Fowler16:55
xG 0.50–0.81 (38%)attempts 10–25goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it SJS. 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 72% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).