Sat, Dec 17, 2016·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Arizona Coyotes 1, Minnesota Wild 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 78% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARI | 010 | 09 | 19 | 128 |
| MIN | 19 | 18 | 213 | 430 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 16:40MINRyan SuterPPAssists: Eric Staal, Zach Parise · Wrist, 0.03 xG0–1
- P2 11:35MINTyler GraovacGWGUnassisted · Backhand, 0.07 xG0–2
- P3 3:24MINChris StewartAssists: Jared Spurgeon · Wrist, 0.10 xG0–3
- P3 18:06ARIBrendan PerliniAssists: Christian Dvorak, Connor Murphy · Wrist, 0.04 xG1–3
- P3 19:23MINEric StaalENAssists: Charlie Coyle, Mikko Koivu · Wrist, 0.73 xG1–4
Penalties (4)
- P1 6:52MINJason Zucker: Holding2 min
- P1 12:06ARIOliver Ekman-Larsson: Interference2 min
- P1 15:03ARIOliver Ekman-Larsson: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P2 15:46ARIOliver Ekman-Larsson: Hooking2 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 20:00Hanzal won the faceoff against Koivu
- 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.
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestDoan – Rieder – Martinook10:21
xG 0.43–0.16 (72%)attempts 12–7goals 0–0
- Jooris – Dvorak – Crouse3:34
xG 0.07–0.06 (50%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Vrbata – Hanzal – Crouse5:49
xG 0.13–0.17 (44%)attempts 7–3goals 0–1
- Vrbata – Hanzal – Perlini4:15
xG 0.01–0.06 (20%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestGoligoski – DeAngelo18:08
xG 0.79–0.45 (64%)attempts 18–19goals 0–0
- Murphy – Chychrun13:16
xG 0.40–0.49 (45%)attempts 12–9goals 0–2
- Schenn – Ekman-Larsson15:11
xG 0.22–0.67 (25%)attempts 12–14goals 1–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestZucker – Granlund – Graovac2:40
xG 0.47–0.05 (91%)attempts 5–4goals 1–0
- Koivu – Zucker – Granlund8:45
xG 0.50–0.12 (81%)attempts 14–3goals 0–0
- Stewart – Pulkkinen – Graovac6:40
xG 0.35–0.09 (80%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0
- Pominville – Zucker – Graovac2:03
xG 0.13–0.01 (90%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestScandella – Folin14:26
xG 0.92–0.47 (66%)attempts 19–17goals 0–1
- Brodin – Dumba16:05
xG 0.52–0.35 (60%)attempts 16–6goals 0–0
- Suter – Spurgeon16:11
xG 0.48–0.56 (46%)attempts 11–15goals 2–0
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 ARI. 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 78% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − ARI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).