Wed, Jan 10, 2018·United Center, Chicago
Minnesota Wild 2, Chicago Blackhawks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 62% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 05 | 110 | 112 | 227 |
| CHI | 114 | 09 | 012 | 135 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 12:24CHIBrent SeabrookAssists: Michal Kempny, Nick Schmaltz · Wrist, 0.12 xG0–1
- P2 9:58MINJonas BrodinAssists: Jason Zucker, Mathew Dumba · Slap, 0.03 xG1–1
- P3 3:03MINRyan SuterGWGAssists: Mikko Koivu, Mikael Granlund · Wrist, 0.16 xG2–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 12:24MINTyler Ennis: Delaying game bench2 min
- P2 15:27CHIConnor Murphy: Holding2 min
- P3 1:24MINMarcus Foligno: Illegal check to head2 min
- P3 2:42CHIPatrick Kane: Tripping2 min
- P3 14:35MINJonas Brodin: Hooking2 min
- P3 17:50CHIJordan Oesterle: Slashing2 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 Toews
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestKoivu – Zucker – Granlund13:18
xG 0.39–0.25 (61%)attempts 10–12goals 1–0
- Cullen – Winnik – Stewart6:14
xG 0.12–0.18 (41%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
- Staal – Parise – Foligno3:03
xG 0.05–0.12 (31%)attempts 3–4goals 0–1
- Ennis – Coyle – Eriksson Ek2:46
xG 0.04–0.11 (26%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Prosser – Reilly7:07
xG 0.19–0.21 (47%)attempts 4–6goals 0–0
- Suter – Spurgeon19:18
xG 0.60–0.64 (49%)attempts 14–24goals 0–0
- Brodin – Dumba15:29
xG 0.37–1.18 (24%)attempts 12–28goals 1–0
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestKane – Hartman – Schmaltz12:28
xG 1.14–0.15 (88%)attempts 26–6goals 1–0
- Toews – Saad – Hinostroza13:03
xG 0.77–0.23 (77%)attempts 21–9goals 0–0
- Kane – Bouma – Wingels6:00
xG 0.25–0.15 (63%)attempts 8–7goals 0–1
- Sharp – DeBrincat – Kampf8:02
xG 0.32–0.30 (52%)attempts 9–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestForsling – Rutta8:43
xG 0.60–0.25 (71%)attempts 14–7goals 0–1
- Seabrook – Forsling2:50
xG 0.29–0.07 (81%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Seabrook – Kempny5:42
xG 0.27–0.07 (80%)attempts 14–3goals 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.
CHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CHI is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 62% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).