Sat, Mar 25, 2017·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Vancouver Canucks 4, Minnesota Wild 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 05 | 413 | 03 | 421 |
| MIN | 07 | 011 | 29 | 227 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 0:19VANReid BoucherPPAssists: Bo Horvat, Troy Stecher · Wrist, 0.22 xG1–0
- P2 5:40VANReid BoucherAssists: Drew Shore · Snap, 0.02 xG2–0
- P2 11:51VANBrock BoeserGWGAssists: Bo Horvat, Sven Baertschi · Wrist, 0.38 xG3–0
- P2 13:37VANJack SkilleAssists: Brandon Sutter · Wrist, 0.03 xG4–0
- P3 17:19MINRyan SuterAssists: Jared Spurgeon, Martin Hanzal · Snap, 0.05 xG4–1
- P3 18:45MINEric StaalAssists: Mathew Dumba, Jonas Brodin · Snap, 0.16 xG4–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 19:40MINRyan Suter: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P2 8:18VANHenrik Sedin: Cross checking2 min
- P2 16:30VANChris Tanev: Roughing2 min
- P3 3:57VANAlexander Edler: Slashing2 min
- P3 5:55MINNino Niederreiter: Tripping2 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 20:00Koivu won the faceoff against Sedin
- 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
- bestBaertschi – Horvat – Boeser11:10
xG 0.51–0.25 (67%)attempts 6–9goals 1–0
- Shore – Boucher – LaBate4:09
xG 0.13–0.01 (90%)attempts 4–1goals 1–0
- Skille – Sutter – Goldobin8:05
xG 0.26–0.15 (64%)attempts 6–7goals 1–0
- Sedin – Sedin – Chaput12:52
xG 0.18–0.24 (44%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Edler – Stecher16:00
xG 0.68–0.64 (52%)attempts 11–16goals 0–0
- Sbisa – Tanev15:48
xG 0.13–0.35 (27%)attempts 7–8goals 2–1
- Hutton – Tryamkin13:45
xG 0.21–0.64 (25%)attempts 10–15goals 0–1
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestStaal – Parise – Coyle12:51
xG 0.54–0.27 (67%)attempts 15–8goals 1–0
- Koivu – Zucker – Granlund12:55
xG 0.43–0.22 (66%)attempts 12–10goals 0–0
- Pominville – Hanzal – Niederreiter10:11
xG 0.30–0.30 (50%)attempts 9–3goals 1–1
- White – Stewart – Haula9:11
xG 0.24–0.68 (26%)attempts 6–10goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Spurgeon5:44
xG 0.34–0.12 (75%)attempts 8–2goals 1–0
- Brodin – Folin13:12
xG 0.31–0.11 (73%)attempts 9–6goals 0–1
- Scandella – Dumba5:00
xG 0.16–0.04 (80%)attempts 5–2goals 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 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).