Thu, Feb 9, 2017·Air Canada Centre, Toronto
St. Louis Blues 2, Toronto Maple Leafs 1 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, St. Louis Blues win this game 58% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STL | 117 | 014 | 08 | 11 | 240 |
| TOR | 04 | 114 | 014 | 00 | 132 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:15STLPatrik BerglundAssists: Magnus Paajarvi, Jaden Schwartz · Wrist, 0.13 xG1–0
- P2 18:56TORMorgan RiellyAssists: William Nylander, Nazem Kadri · Wrist, 0.21 xG1–1
- OT 0:20STLVladimir TarasenkoGWGAssists: Jori Lehtera, Kevin Shattenkirk · Snap, 0.16 xG2–1
Penalties (2)
- P1 12:23TORAuston Matthews: Hooking2 min
- P3 8:03STLAlex Pietrangelo: Holding the stick2 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 20:00Kadri won the faceoff against Stastny
- 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.
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestPerron – Lehtera – Agostino4:22
xG 0.68–0.03 (96%)attempts 12–2goals 0–0
- Steen – Stastny – Tarasenko5:28
xG 0.16–0.04 (79%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
- Upshall – Reaves – Barbashev6:19
xG 0.10–0.10 (51%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Berglund – Paajarvi – Schwartz8:19
xG 0.56–0.59 (49%)attempts 13–11goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestShattenkirk – Gunnarsson14:39
xG 0.53–0.07 (88%)attempts 16–6goals 1–0
- Edmundson – Parayko16:04
xG 0.91–0.94 (49%)attempts 15–18goals 0–1
- Bouwmeester – Pietrangelo19:40
xG 0.85–0.94 (47%)attempts 21–24goals 0–0
Toronto Maple Leafs
Forward lines
- bestKomarov – Kadri – Nylander8:27
xG 0.70–0.29 (71%)attempts 13–5goals 1–0
- Martin – Smith – Leivo8:01
xG 0.21–0.01 (94%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
- Hyman – Brown – Matthews7:10
xG 0.38–0.34 (53%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- van Riemsdyk – Bozak – Marner12:43
xG 0.46–0.60 (43%)attempts 16–20goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestPolak – Hunwick14:24
xG 0.93–0.23 (80%)attempts 18–9goals 0–0
- Rielly – Zaitsev18:39
xG 1.05–1.09 (49%)attempts 19–19goals 1–0
- Gardiner – Carrick19:02
xG 0.45–1.03 (30%)attempts 18–27goals 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.
TOR's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TOR is favoured, below it STL. 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, St. Louis Blues win this game 58% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TOR − STL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).