Tue, Jan 10, 2017·Honda Center, Anaheim
Dallas Stars 0, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 79% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAL | 012 | 06 | 016 | 034 |
| ANA | 013 | 116 | 19 | 238 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 14:33ANAJakob SilfverbergPPGWGAssists: Corey Perry, Sami Vatanen · Slap, 0.47 xG0–1
- P3 14:42ANAAndrew CoglianoAssists: Jakob Silfverberg, Josh Manson · Slap, 0.07 xG0–2
Penalties (7)
- P1 17:27DALDevin Shore: Tripping2 min
- P2 4:39ANARyan Kesler: Holding the stick2 min
- P2 8:38DALCody Eakin: Hooking2 min
- P2 11:01ANARyan Kesler: Interference2 min
- P2 14:08DALJohn Klingberg: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P2 18:46DALLauri Korpikoski: Interference2 min
- P3 18:33ANAKevin Bieksa: 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
- P1 20:00Eakin won the faceoff against Vermette
- 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.
Dallas Stars
Forward lines
- bestEaves – Roussel – Eakin6:08
xG 0.66–0.24 (73%)attempts 7–7goals 0–0
- Roussel – Eakin – Seguin2:59
xG 0.03–0.07 (26%)attempts 2–1goals 0–1
- Sharp – Faksa – Shore12:05
xG 0.29–0.44 (40%)attempts 12–11goals 0–0
- Korpikoski – Cracknell – Ritchie6:32
xG 0.24–0.58 (29%)attempts 3–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHamhuis – Oleksiak6:17
xG 0.30–0.20 (60%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Oduya – Benn11:54
xG 0.48–0.47 (51%)attempts 15–11goals 0–0
- Hamhuis – Lindell4:08
xG 0.08–0.19 (29%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg10:44
xG 1.41–0.13 (91%)attempts 20–4goals 1–0
- Perry – Cramarossa – Rakell12:02
xG 0.62–0.19 (77%)attempts 9–10goals 0–0
- Vermette – Ritchie – Kase12:12
xG 0.48–0.36 (57%)attempts 14–10goals 0–0
- Boll – Wagner – Shaw4:55
xG 0.02–0.49 (5%)attempts 1–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestManson – Lindholm11:24
xG 1.05–0.32 (77%)attempts 14–10goals 1–0
- Vatanen – Fowler15:43
xG 0.50–0.59 (46%)attempts 15–15goals 0–0
- Bieksa – Holzer13:16
xG 0.58–0.73 (44%)attempts 9–11goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it DAL. 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 79% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − DAL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).