Sat, Dec 23, 2017·PPG Paints Arena, Pittsburgh
Anaheim Ducks 4, Pittsburgh Penguins 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 50% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 211 | 26 | 06 | 423 |
| PIT | 09 | 013 | 07 | 029 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:10ANAOndrej KaseGWGUnassisted · Backhand, 0.16 xG1–0
- P1 10:35ANARickard RakellAssists: Ryan Getzlaf · Backhand, 0.08 xG2–0
- P2 3:42ANAAndrew CoglianoSHAssists: Brandon Montour · Wrist, 0.19 xG3–0
- P2 19:56ANACam FowlerPPAssists: Rickard Rakell, Jakob Silfverberg · Snap, 0.22 xG4–0
Penalties (6)
- P2 2:51ANAHampus Lindholm: Cross checking2 min
- P2 10:57ANARyan Getzlaf: Interference2 min
- P2 18:42PITBrian Dumoulin: Holding2 min · PPG
- P3 5:34ANAHampus Lindholm: Holding2 min
- P3 5:34PITBryan Rust: Holding2 min
- P3 15:42PITPatric Hornqvist: 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 20:00Getzlaf 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGetzlaf – Rakell – Kase13:07
xG 0.89–0.07 (93%)attempts 15–5goals 2–0
- Grant – Wagner – Shaw5:46
xG 0.05–0.06 (45%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
- Vermette – Roy – Ritchie7:57
xG 0.16–0.39 (29%)attempts 6–12goals 0–0
- Cogliano – Henrique – Silfverberg13:46
xG 0.15–0.79 (16%)attempts 3–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBieksa – Fowler16:56
xG 0.78–0.41 (66%)attempts 17–13goals 1–0
- Manson – Lindholm16:10
xG 0.31–0.41 (43%)attempts 7–15goals 1–0
- Beauchemin – Montour14:51
xG 0.31–0.78 (29%)attempts 13–15goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestSheahan – Rust – Sheary9:43
xG 0.36–0.03 (93%)attempts 11–3goals 0–0
- Crosby – Hornqvist – Guentzel9:30
xG 0.59–0.26 (69%)attempts 15–7goals 0–0
- Malkin – Hornqvist – Hagelin3:04
xG 0.26–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Crosby – Rust – Guentzel3:13
xG 0.19–0.16 (55%)attempts 3–1goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Dumoulin17:49
xG 0.68–0.22 (75%)attempts 16–9goals 0–1
- Cole – Oleksiak12:50
xG 0.62–0.50 (55%)attempts 12–12goals 0–1
- Cole – Ruhwedel2:13
xG 0.11–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–0goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 50% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).