Tue, Jan 31, 2017·SAP Center at San Jose, San Jose
Chicago Blackhawks 1, San Jose Sharks 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 82% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 07 | 110 | 08 | 125 |
| SJS | 010 | 111 | 28 | 329 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 14:06SJSPatrick MarleauPPAssists: Joe Pavelski, Brent Burns · Snap, 0.22 xG0–1
- P2 16:53CHIDennis RasmussenAssists: Richard Panik, Brent Seabrook · Snap, 0.03 xG1–1
- P3 17:57SJSTomas HertlGWGAssists: Brent Burns, Joe Pavelski · Backhand, 0.37 xG1–2
- P3 19:14SJSJoe PavelskiENAssists: Logan Couture, Joe Thornton · Wrist, 0.63 xG1–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 5:20CHIArtemi Panarin: Hooking2 min
- P1 12:21SJSRyan Carpenter: Tripping2 min
- P1 17:09CHIRyan Hartman: Hooking2 min
- P2 9:22SJSBrenden Dillon: Tripping2 min
- P2 13:33CHIArtem Anisimov: Holding2 min · PPG
- P3 2:54SJSBrent Burns: 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 20:00Toews won the faceoff against Couture
- 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.
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestAnisimov – Kane – Schmaltz3:56
xG 0.22–0.04 (84%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Toews – Kane – Panarin2:44
xG 0.10–0.01 (88%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Desjardins – Panik – Rasmussen9:18
xG 0.32–0.25 (56%)attempts 9–10goals 1–0
- Anisimov – Kane – Panarin6:26
xG 0.00–0.19 (0%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestKeith – Seabrook3:56
xG 0.33–0.02 (95%)attempts 9–1goals 1–0
- van Riemsdyk – Forsling2:05
xG 0.11–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Campbell – Seabrook3:39
xG 0.27–0.34 (44%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestThornton – Pavelski – Hertl11:30
xG 0.66–0.20 (77%)attempts 9–14goals 1–1
- Marleau – Couture – Boedker9:12
xG 0.71–0.29 (71%)attempts 12–8goals 0–0
- Ward – Tierney – Labanc9:19
xG 0.19–0.09 (69%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0
- Carpenter – Karlsson – Meier5:17
xG 0.20–0.34 (38%)attempts 10–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMartin – Burns15:49
xG 1.14–0.40 (74%)attempts 20–13goals 1–0
- Vlasic – Braun14:51
xG 0.51–0.31 (62%)attempts 9–12goals 0–0
- Schlemko – Dillon12:25
xG 0.34–0.32 (51%)attempts 15–10goals 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 CHI. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 82% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).