Thu, Jan 4, 2018·PPG Paints Arena, Pittsburgh
Carolina Hurricanes 4, Pittsburgh Penguins 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Carolina Hurricanes win this game 84% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAR | 08 | 215 | 210 | 433 |
| PIT | 05 | 07 | 09 | 021 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 6:50CARJeff SkinnerGWGUnassisted · Wrist, 0.09 xG1–0
- P2 16:53CARTeuvo TeravainenAssists: Sebastian Aho, Jaccob Slavin · Wrist, 0.17 xG2–0
- P3 9:14CARSebastian AhoAssists: Jordan Staal, Brett Pesce · Backhand, 0.11 xG3–0
- P3 12:33CARSebastian AhoAssists: Teuvo Teravainen, Brett Pesce · Tip-in, 0.08 xG4–0
Penalties (3)
- P1 17:48PITPhil Kessel: Slashing2 min
- P2 7:22CARJeff Skinner: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 5:45CARJustin Faulk: Delaying game puck over glass2 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 20:00Staal 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.
Carolina Hurricanes
Forward lines
- bestSkinner – Lindholm – Ryan14:32
xG 0.84–0.25 (77%)attempts 12–10goals 1–0
- Staal – Teravainen – Aho11:32
xG 0.72–0.25 (74%)attempts 13–9goals 3–0
- Nordstrom – Di Giuseppe – Jooris7:45
xG 0.00–0.06 (0%)attempts 0–8goals 0–0
- Williams – Rask – McGinn11:16
xG 0.44–0.58 (44%)attempts 8–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestvan Riemsdyk – Hanifin13:15
xG 1.45–0.38 (79%)attempts 18–13goals 0–0
- Slavin – Pesce19:25
xG 0.85–0.47 (64%)attempts 13–16goals 3–0
- Faulk – Fleury16:08
xG 0.37–0.24 (60%)attempts 10–11goals 1–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestCrosby – Guentzel – Sprong2:30
xG 0.20–0.00 (99%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Hagelin – Sheahan – Sprong3:07
xG 0.09–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Crosby – Kessel – Simon4:20
xG 0.22–0.17 (56%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Crosby – Sheary – Simon7:23
xG 0.14–0.14 (49%)attempts 6–3goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestHunwick – Letang17:45
xG 0.57–0.43 (57%)attempts 18–9goals 0–1
- Oleksiak – Maatta12:42
xG 0.50–1.24 (29%)attempts 13–14goals 0–1
- Cole – Schultz19:58
xG 0.10–1.06 (9%)attempts 13–18goals 0–2
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 CAR. 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, Carolina Hurricanes win this game 84% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − CAR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).