Tue, Feb 14, 2017·PPG Paints Arena, Pittsburgh
Vancouver Canucks 0, Pittsburgh Penguins 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 92% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 09 | 08 | 012 | 029 |
| PIT | 015 | 110 | 317 | 442 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 5:16PITEvgeni MalkinGWGAssists: Olli Maatta, Trevor Daley · Wrist, 0.17 xG0–1
- P3 2:27PITJake GuentzelAssists: Sidney Crosby, Brian Dumoulin · Wrist, 0.19 xG0–2
- P3 14:03PITPhil KesselAssists: Evgeni Malkin, Scott Wilson · Wrist, 0.13 xG0–3
- P3 18:03PITMatt CullenAssists: Nick Bonino, Kris Letang · Wrist, 0.16 xG0–4
Penalties (3)
- P1 18:07VANMarkus Granlund: High sticking2 min
- P2 10:53VANAlexander Edler: Slashing2 min
- P3 4:55PITKris Letang: Delaying game puck over glass2 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
- Press play, or drag along the timeline.
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestEriksson – Skille – Megna7:21
xG 0.34–0.25 (58%)attempts 7–7goals 0–1
- Burrows – Hansen – Gaunce12:00
xG 0.58–0.71 (45%)attempts 13–11goals 0–1
- Sedin – Sedin – Granlund12:49
xG 0.25–0.82 (24%)attempts 12–13goals 0–1
- Sedin – Sedin – Eriksson3:48
xG 0.04–0.87 (4%)attempts 4–4goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestHutton – Tryamkin12:19
xG 0.43–0.37 (54%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Edler – Stecher15:30
xG 0.48–1.26 (28%)attempts 15–15goals 0–2
- Sbisa – Tanev13:23
xG 0.33–1.14 (23%)attempts 14–12goals 0–2
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestCullen – Kessel – Bonino11:52
xG 1.39–0.53 (72%)attempts 14–10goals 1–0
- Kunitz – Crosby – Guentzel15:15
xG 1.30–0.50 (72%)attempts 18–14goals 1–0
- Malkin – Hornqvist – Wilson12:24
xG 0.62–0.05 (92%)attempts 10–8goals 1–0
- Kuhnhackl – Archibald – Rowney6:48
xG 0.12–0.29 (30%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Dumoulin17:05
xG 1.41–0.49 (74%)attempts 18–11goals 1–0
- Cole – Schultz15:39
xG 0.95–0.57 (63%)attempts 16–16goals 1–0
- Daley – Maatta13:50
xG 0.55–0.29 (65%)attempts 11–14goals 1–0
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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it VAN. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 92% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).