Thu, Oct 19, 2017·Nationwide Arena, Columbus
Tampa Bay Lightning 2, Columbus Blue Jackets 0
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Columbus Blue Jackets win this game 55% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 113 | 15 | 03 | 221 |
| CBJ | 010 | 018 | 015 | 043 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 17:48TBLMikhail SergachevGWGAssists: Vladislav Namestnikov, Steven Stamkos · Slap, 0.02 xG1–0
- P2 15:37TBLMikhail SergachevAssists: Nikita Kucherov, Steven Stamkos · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–0
Penalties (5)
- P1 9:33CBJDavid Savard: Cross checking2 min
- P1 0:00TBLChris Kunitz: Slashing2 min
- P2 12:14TBLVictor Hedman: Tripping2 min
- P3 1:31CBJNick Foligno: Tripping2 min
- P3 8:09TBLRyan Callahan: 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 20:00Point won the faceoff against Foligno
- 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.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- Kunitz – Callahan – Dumont9:50
xG 0.33–0.29 (53%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
- Killorn – Johnson – Kucherov2:18
xG 0.02–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Palat – Gourde – Point9:52
xG 0.15–0.33 (32%)attempts 6–12goals 0–0
- Stamkos – Kucherov – Namestnikov10:35
xG 0.13–0.87 (13%)attempts 3–15goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestHedman – Sustr5:12
xG 0.30–0.14 (69%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
- Stralman – Sustr2:11
xG 0.04–0.01 (77%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Stralman – Sergachev9:15
xG 0.31–0.29 (52%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forward lines
- bestAtkinson – Wennberg – Panarin14:10
xG 1.14–0.22 (84%)attempts 24–6goals 0–1
- Dalpe – Sedlak – Dubois5:28
xG 0.42–0.43 (49%)attempts 11–9goals 0–1
- Dubinsky – Anderson – Milano4:26
xG 0.13–0.15 (46%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
- Dalpe – Calvert – Dubois2:59
xG 0.06–0.11 (36%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestJones – Werenski16:11
xG 0.99–0.33 (75%)attempts 27–8goals 0–1
- Murray – Nutivaara11:58
xG 0.64–0.36 (64%)attempts 12–8goals 0–0
- Johnson – Savard15:39
xG 0.46–0.67 (41%)attempts 11–20goals 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.
CBJ's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CBJ is favoured, below it TBL. 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, Columbus Blue Jackets win this game 55% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CBJ − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).