Fri, Feb 24, 2017·PNC Arena, Raleigh
Ottawa Senators 0, Carolina Hurricanes 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Carolina Hurricanes win this game 83% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTT | 07 | 018 | 09 | 034 |
| CAR | 119 | 214 | 011 | 344 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 1:19CARJordan StaalGWGAssists: Phillip Di Giuseppe, Brock McGinn · Wrap-around, 0.06 xG0–1
- P2 15:16CARElias LindholmAssists: Phillip Di Giuseppe, Jordan Staal · Snap, 0.14 xG0–2
- P2 19:18CARViktor StalbergAssists: Sebastian Aho, Victor Rask · Wrist, 0.28 xG0–3
Penalties (4)
- P2 8:28OTTZack Smith: Tripping2 min
- P3 4:23CARJaccob Slavin: Hooking2 min
- P3 9:50OTTMarc Methot: Interference2 min
- P3 12:51CARJay McClement: Slashing2 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 20:00Rask won the faceoff against Brassard
- 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.
Ottawa Senators
Forward lines
- bestPyatt – Wingels – Bailey3:19
xG 0.24–0.12 (66%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
- Kelly – Wingels – Lazar2:13
xG 0.00–0.21 (0%)attempts 0–4goals 0–0
- Brassard – Smith – Pageau3:00
xG 0.21–0.42 (33%)attempts 3–5goals 0–1
- Turris – Dzingel – Pageau2:58
xG 0.06–0.59 (9%)attempts 3–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestKarlsson – Wideman5:16
xG 0.60–0.19 (76%)attempts 12–5goals 0–0
- Borowiecki – Ceci9:06
xG 0.62–0.44 (58%)attempts 16–9goals 0–0
- Phaneuf – Methot2:48
xG 0.01–0.07 (9%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
Carolina Hurricanes
Forward lines
- bestStaal – Di Giuseppe – McGinn8:23
xG 1.39–0.25 (85%)attempts 17–6goals 1–0
- Stalberg – Rask – Aho2:13
xG 0.38–0.18 (68%)attempts 4–5goals 1–0
- McClement – Stalberg – Nordstrom6:39
xG 0.17–0.05 (79%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- Rask – Lindholm – Aho9:47
xG 0.33–0.34 (50%)attempts 15–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestFaulk – Slavin19:27
xG 1.53–1.09 (58%)attempts 25–27goals 1–0
- Pesce – Hanifin13:36
xG 0.74–0.30 (71%)attempts 20–14goals 1–0
- Dahlbeck – Murphy13:27
xG 0.33–0.58 (36%)attempts 14–13goals 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.
CAR's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CAR is favoured, below it OTT. 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, Carolina Hurricanes win this game 83% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CAR − OTT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).