Sun, Mar 5, 2017·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
San Jose Sharks 1, Minnesota Wild 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 95% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 19 | 07 | 05 | 121 |
| MIN | 212 | 09 | 17 | 328 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 11:06MINZach ParisePPAssists: Jason Pominville, Ryan Suter · Tip-in, 0.17 xG0–1
- P1 15:24MINEric StaalGWGAssists: Mathew Dumba · Wrist, 0.05 xG0–2
- P1 18:26SJSMelker KarlssonAssists: Micheal Haley, Justin Braun · Wrist, 0.09 xG1–2
- P3 18:11MINEric StaalENAssists: Martin Hanzal · Wrist, 0.73 xG1–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 9:49SJSKevin Labanc: Boarding2 min · PPG
- P1 15:47MINMarco Scandella: High sticking2 min
- P1 19:53SJSJoe Pavelski: High sticking double minor4 min
- P2 9:41MINZach Parise: Boarding2 min
- P2 14:42MINMathew Dumba: Holding2 min
- P2 19:19SJSMarcus Sorensen: 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 20:00Thornton won the faceoff against Hanzal
- 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.
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- Thornton – Pavelski – Labanc8:43
xG 0.20–0.44 (32%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Marleau – Couture – Boedker10:04
xG 0.23–0.47 (33%)attempts 5–12goals 0–0
- Ward – Sorensen – Hertl7:13
xG 0.17–0.55 (23%)attempts 7–6goals 0–1
- Haley – Tierney – Karlsson7:49
xG 0.09–0.72 (11%)attempts 4–10goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestBraun – Dillon2:02
xG 0.14–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–1goals 1–0
- Vlasic – Braun10:36
xG 0.12–0.23 (36%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
- Dillon – DeMelo11:37
xG 0.33–0.49 (40%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestPominville – White – Haula7:17
xG 0.74–0.00 (100%)attempts 8–2goals 0–0
- Staal – Parise – Stewart9:36
xG 0.60–0.23 (73%)attempts 11–7goals 1–0
- Koivu – Zucker – Granlund10:32
xG 0.48–0.23 (68%)attempts 12–6goals 0–1
- Hanzal – Coyle – Niederreiter10:37
xG 0.47–0.32 (59%)attempts 8–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestScandella – Dumba11:22
xG 0.92–0.29 (76%)attempts 13–6goals 1–0
- Suter – Dumba3:30
xG 0.22–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Suter – Spurgeon12:11
xG 0.52–0.33 (62%)attempts 12–9goals 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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it SJS. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 95% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).