Sat, Mar 11, 2017·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
Pittsburgh Penguins 3, Vancouver Canucks 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 75% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 012 | 123 | 213 | 348 |
| VAN | 011 | 08 | 08 | 027 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 16:24PITIan ColeGWGAssists: Tom Kuhnhackl, Scott Wilson · Wrist, 0.02 xG1–0
- P3 16:54PITJake GuentzelAssists: Conor Sheary, Sidney Crosby · Deflected, 0.15 xG2–0
- P3 18:45PITConor ShearyENAssists: Jake Guentzel, Sidney Crosby · Wrist, 0.61 xG3–0
Penalties (4)
- P2 9:03VANSven Baertschi: Hooking2 min
- P2 13:24VANLuca Sbisa: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:54PITIan Cole: Roughing2 min
- P3 9:57VANNikita Tryamkin: Boarding2 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 20:00Crosby won the faceoff against Sutter
- 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestCrosby – Guentzel – Sheary14:16
xG 1.07–0.45 (71%)attempts 21–11goals 0–0
- Bonino – Kuhnhackl – Wilson10:11
xG 0.42–0.08 (84%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Malkin – Kessel11:32
xG 0.18–0.70 (20%)attempts 8–15goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHainsey – Dumoulin2:37
xG 0.52–0.00 (100%)attempts 8–1goals 1–0
- Dumoulin – Ruhwedel2:30
xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Cole – Schultz3:21
xG 0.09–0.03 (73%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestSedin – Sedin – Grenier4:31
xG 0.29–0.06 (83%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Boucher – Baertschi – Horvat12:10
xG 0.40–0.26 (60%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Chaput8:36
xG 0.50–0.48 (51%)attempts 9–11goals 0–1
- Sutter – Cramarossa – Megna10:51
xG 0.20–0.63 (24%)attempts 9–17goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHutton – Tryamkin11:46
xG 0.47–0.24 (67%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Sbisa – Hutton2:12
xG 0.00–0.19 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
- Edler – Stecher13:21
xG 0.46–0.75 (38%)attempts 13–19goals 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.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN is favoured, below it PIT. 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 75% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).