Sat, Oct 28, 2017·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Pittsburgh Penguins 1, Minnesota Wild 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 69% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 114 | 06 | 010 | 130 |
| MIN | 113 | 06 | 110 | 229 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 11:52PITEvgeni MalkinPPAssists: Kris Letang, Phil Kessel · Slap, 0.34 xG1–0
- P1 13:36MINDaniel WinnikAssists: Matt Cullen, Jared Spurgeon · Wrist, 0.37 xG1–1
- P3 9:03MINMikko KoivuGWGAssists: Mike Reilly, Kyle Quincey · Tip-in, 0.06 xG1–2
Penalties (7)
- P1 6:40MINEric Staal: Tripping2 min
- P1 10:39MINMikko Koivu: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 5:16PITOlli Maatta: Holding2 min
- P2 14:30MINMike Reilly: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P2 18:03PITEvgeni Malkin: Interference2 min
- P3 4:01PITBryan Rust: Slashing2 min
- P3 18:33PITIan Cole: 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 20:00Koivu won the faceoff against Crosby
- 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
- bestReaves – McKegg – Kuhnhackl5:43
xG 0.38–0.06 (87%)attempts 7–1goals 0–1
- Malkin – Kessel – Rust9:01
xG 0.29–0.24 (55%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Malkin – Kessel – Hagelin2:17
xG 0.02–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Hornqvist – Hagelin – Sheahan5:46
xG 0.04–0.12 (25%)attempts 5–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Trotman10:01
xG 0.32–0.24 (57%)attempts 13–6goals 0–0
- Maatta – Ruhwedel14:24
xG 0.85–0.87 (49%)attempts 20–15goals 0–1
- Letang – Cole2:08
xG 0.05–0.09 (37%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestKoivu – Zucker – Granlund12:40
xG 0.57–0.32 (64%)attempts 14–10goals 1–0
- Staal – Foligno – Kunin11:34
xG 0.28–0.25 (53%)attempts 8–10goals 0–0
- Cullen – Winnik – Mitchell8:06
xG 0.40–0.52 (43%)attempts 3–10goals 1–0
- Stewart – Ennis – Eriksson Ek8:40
xG 0.12–0.35 (25%)attempts 6–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBrodin – Dumba17:12
xG 0.71–0.50 (59%)attempts 16–18goals 0–0
- Suter – Spurgeon18:22
xG 0.61–0.61 (50%)attempts 13–17goals 0–0
- Quincey – Reilly8:19
xG 0.14–0.58 (19%)attempts 4–13goals 1–0
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 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 69% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).