Sat, Oct 28, 2017·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Anaheim Ducks 4, Tampa Bay Lightning 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 52% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 05 | 38 | 18 | 421 |
| TBL | 010 | 112 | 010 | 132 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 10:13ANARickard RakellPPAssists: Brandon Montour, Ryan Getzlaf · Snap, 0.08 xG1–0
- P2 16:55ANABrandon MontourPPGWGAssists: Ryan Getzlaf · Wrist, 0.18 xG2–0
- P2 17:52TBLChris KunitzAssists: JT Brown, Ryan Callahan · Backhand, 0.06 xG2–1
- P2 19:59ANAHampus LindholmAssists: Chris Wagner, Dennis Rasmussen · Wrist, 0.07 xG3–1
- P3 8:59ANARickard RakellAssists: Ryan Getzlaf, Corey Perry · Slap, 0.08 xG4–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 12:59ANARyan Getzlaf: High sticking2 min
- P2 7:15ANANick Ritchie: Slashing2 min
- P2 9:16TBLRyan Callahan: Interference2 min · PPG
- P2 13:48ANAJosh Manson: Interference2 min
- P2 15:53TBLJT Brown: Too many men on the ice2 min · PPG
- P3 6:18ANAJakob Silfverberg: Hooking2 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 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
- bestGetzlaf – Perry – Rakell14:52
xG 0.35–0.28 (56%)attempts 13–10goals 1–0
- Wagner – Shaw – Rasmussen5:15
xG 0.17–0.12 (58%)attempts 4–7goals 1–0
- Vermette – Cogliano – Silfverberg10:26
xG 0.19–0.21 (47%)attempts 10–5goals 0–0
- Grant – Ritchie – Kase5:41
xG 0.01–0.11 (10%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Manson – Lindholm16:37
xG 0.27–0.23 (55%)attempts 12–11goals 0–0
- Beauchemin – Montour14:42
xG 0.23–0.27 (46%)attempts 8–15goals 1–0
- Vatanen – Megna11:30
xG 0.10–0.57 (15%)attempts 10–11goals 0–1
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Callahan – Brown8:52
xG 0.35–0.16 (68%)attempts 8–9goals 1–1
- Killorn – Johnson – Point2:32
xG 0.09–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Stamkos – Kucherov – Namestnikov14:37
xG 0.32–0.23 (58%)attempts 13–8goals 0–0
- Palat – Gourde – Point9:26
xG 0.17–0.19 (47%)attempts 4–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestStralman – Sergachev8:23
xG 0.34–0.12 (74%)attempts 12–6goals 0–0
- Hedman – Dotchin13:46
xG 0.21–0.16 (57%)attempts 5–9goals 0–1
- Coburn – Girardi8:41
xG 0.16–0.16 (50%)attempts 9–12goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 52% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).