Thu, Mar 9, 2017·United Center, Chicago
Anaheim Ducks 1, Chicago Blackhawks 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 67% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 02 | 112 | 012 | 126 |
| CHI | 019 | 012 | 012 | 043 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 17:44ANACorey PerryGWGAssists: Logan Shaw, Kevin Bieksa · Wrist, 0.07 xG1–0
Penalties (9)
- P1 6:10ANAJared Boll: Roughing2 min
- P1 14:35CHIRichard Panik: High sticking2 min
- P1 14:35ANAJosh Manson: Slashing2 min
- P1 17:12CHIRichard Panik: Fighting5 min
- P1 17:12ANARyan Getzlaf: Instigator2 min
- P1 17:12ANARyan Getzlaf: Fighting5 min
- P1 17:12ANARyan Getzlaf: Misconduct10 min
- P2 3:53CHIJohnny Oduya: Interference2 min
- P2 11:45CHIBrent Seabrook: 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 20:00Anisimov won the faceoff against Getzlaf
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg13:39
xG 1.01–0.56 (64%)attempts 21–16goals 0–0
- Boll – Wagner – Shaw2:00
xG 0.00–0.01 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Eaves – Rakell9:02
xG 0.12–0.26 (31%)attempts 6–10goals 0–0
- Perry – Thompson – Kase8:34
xG 0.34–0.69 (33%)attempts 8–11goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestManson – Lindholm13:15
xG 1.06–0.56 (66%)attempts 16–13goals 0–0
- Bieksa – Vatanen8:07
xG 0.85–0.69 (55%)attempts 14–12goals 1–0
- Vatanen – Montour2:20
xG 0.00–0.06 (0%)attempts 0–4goals 0–0
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestTootoo – Kruger – Hartman6:28
xG 0.43–0.05 (89%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Anisimov – Kane – Panarin9:32
xG 0.52–0.15 (78%)attempts 12–7goals 0–0
- Hossa – Jurco – Kero7:43
xG 0.48–0.26 (65%)attempts 10–7goals 0–0
- Toews – Kane – Panarin2:07
xG 0.22–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–0goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCampbell – van Riemsdyk15:23
xG 1.21–0.77 (61%)attempts 20–16goals 0–0
- Keith – Seabrook14:52
xG 0.57–0.20 (74%)attempts 23–12goals 0–0
- Oduya – Hjalmarsson13:40
xG 0.59–1.12 (35%)attempts 14–17goals 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.
CHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CHI is favoured, below it ANA. 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, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 67% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).