Fri, Dec 23, 2016·Gila River Arena, Glendale
Toronto Maple Leafs 4, Arizona Coyotes 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Arizona Coyotes win this game 63% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOR | 17 | 116 | 29 | 432 |
| ARI | 016 | 18 | 08 | 132 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:04TORConnor BrownAssists: Auston Matthews, Zach Hyman · Wrist, 0.10 xG1–0
- P2 0:43TORLeo KomarovPPGWGAssists: Jake Gardiner, Connor Brown · Tip-in, 0.17 xG2–0
- P2 19:16ARIShane DoanAssists: Connor Murphy, Peter Holland · Wrist, 0.11 xG2–1
- P3 6:26TORLeo KomarovUnassisted · Backhand, 0.12 xG3–1
- P3 11:31TORWilliam NylanderAssists: Morgan Rielly, Frederik Gauthier · Backhand, 0.13 xG4–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 9:31TORWilliam Nylander: High sticking2 min
- P2 0:13ARIConnor Murphy: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P3 2:18TORRoman Polak: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 7:34TORZach Hyman: Hooking2 min
- P3 18:48TORWilliam Nylander: 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 Matthews
- 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.
Toronto Maple Leafs
Forward lines
- bestHyman – Brown – Matthews12:17
xG 0.90–0.49 (65%)attempts 12–16goals 1–1
- van Riemsdyk – Kadri – Marner14:55
xG 0.59–0.43 (58%)attempts 18–16goals 0–0
- Komarov – Gauthier – Nylander8:12
xG 0.24–0.32 (43%)attempts 8–9goals 1–0
- Martin – Froese – Soshnikov6:56
xG 0.12–0.68 (15%)attempts 8–15goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRielly – Zaitsev19:08
xG 0.89–0.72 (55%)attempts 16–25goals 3–0
- Polak – Hunwick15:31
xG 0.85–1.02 (46%)attempts 14–26goals 0–1
- Gardiner – Carrick15:54
xG 0.56–0.82 (41%)attempts 24–21goals 0–0
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestMartinook – Duclair – Crouse13:00
xG 1.37–0.35 (80%)attempts 23–13goals 0–1
- Doan – McGinn – Holland11:46
xG 0.34–0.32 (51%)attempts 18–10goals 1–0
- McGinn – Jooris – Dvorak4:13
xG 0.02–0.08 (20%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
- Vrbata – Hanzal – Rieder13:12
xG 0.52–0.82 (39%)attempts 21–12goals 0–2
Defence pairs
- bestSchenn – Connauton10:26
xG 1.08–0.31 (78%)attempts 24–10goals 0–0
- Ekman-Larsson – DeAngelo9:10
xG 0.56–0.28 (67%)attempts 11–7goals 0–1
- Goligoski – Murphy2:02
xG 0.08–0.06 (56%)attempts 4–2goals 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.
ARI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ARI is favoured, below it TOR. 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, Arizona Coyotes win this game 63% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ARI − TOR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).