Sun, Nov 12, 2017·Honda Center, Anaheim
Tampa Bay Lightning 2, Anaheim Ducks 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 70% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 017 | 112 | 18 | 237 |
| ANA | 07 | 07 | 115 | 129 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 9:12TBLVladislav NamestnikovPPAssists: Nikita Kucherov, Steven Stamkos · Backhand, 0.37 xG1–0
- P3 3:48ANAJakob SilfverbergAssists: Chris Wagner, Andrew Cogliano · Wrist, 0.14 xG1–1
- P3 7:18TBLJT BrownGWGAssists: Chris Kunitz, Ryan Callahan · Snap, 0.07 xG2–1
Penalties (3)
- P1 3:08ANACorey Perry: Hooking2 min
- P2 7:19ANABrandon Montour: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P3 10:27TBLRyan Callahan: Holding the stick2 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 20:00Grant won the faceoff against Point
- 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
- bestStamkos – Kucherov – Namestnikov13:16
xG 1.09–0.75 (59%)attempts 14–18goals 0–0
- Palat – Gourde – Point10:16
xG 0.41–0.16 (72%)attempts 17–5goals 0–1
- Killorn – Johnson – Kucherov5:00
xG 0.28–0.11 (72%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Callahan – Brown10:10
xG 0.34–0.35 (49%)attempts 9–7goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestHedman – Dotchin13:46
xG 0.91–0.31 (74%)attempts 18–14goals 0–0
- Girardi – Sergachev3:35
xG 0.75–0.18 (80%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
- Hedman – Sustr3:37
xG 0.44–0.12 (78%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestRoy – Ritchie – Kossila7:25
xG 0.53–0.32 (63%)attempts 8–8goals 0–1
- Vermette – Shaw – Rasmussen12:14
xG 0.27–0.44 (38%)attempts 8–12goals 0–0
- Cogliano – Silfverberg – Wagner11:02
xG 0.78–1.30 (38%)attempts 18–12goals 1–0
- Perry – Grant – Rakell15:23
xG 0.25–0.78 (24%)attempts 15–21goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Beauchemin – Montour13:26
xG 0.92–1.01 (48%)attempts 17–22goals 0–0
- Bieksa – Vatanen16:23
xG 0.30–0.48 (39%)attempts 9–16goals 1–1
- Manson – Lindholm17:24
xG 0.76–1.50 (34%)attempts 22–20goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 70% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).