Thu, Mar 8, 2018·Bridgestone Arena, Nashville
Anaheim Ducks 2, Nashville Predators 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 60% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 07 | 08 | 218 | 233 |
| NSH | 211 | 110 | 17 | 428 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:26NSHCraig SmithAssists: Kyle Turris, Ryan Hartman · Wrist, 0.08 xG0–1
- P1 15:10NSHRyan JohansenAssists: Filip Forsberg, Viktor Arvidsson · Tip-in, 0.14 xG0–2
- P2 18:42NSHAustin WatsonSHGWGAssists: Colton Sissons, Ryan Ellis · Backhand, 0.40 xG0–3
- P3 6:04ANARickard RakellAssists: Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf · Slap, 0.19 xG1–3
- P3 16:35ANARickard RakellAssists: Ryan Getzlaf, Jakob Silfverberg · Wrist, 0.13 xG2–3
- P3 18:14NSHViktor ArvidssonAssists: Filip Forsberg, Ryan Johansen · Wrist, 0.06 xG2–4
Penalties (5)
- P1 17:24ANANick Ritchie: Cross checking2 min
- P2 18:14NSHCalle Jarnkrok: Interference2 min
- P2 18:43ANARyan Kesler: Fighting5 min
- P2 18:43NSHRyan Johansen: Fighting5 min
- P3 9:39NSHRyan Ellis: 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 20:00Getzlaf won the faceoff against Johansen
- 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
- bestKesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg9:52
xG 0.36–0.05 (88%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Perry – Rakell15:12
xG 0.65–0.52 (56%)attempts 12–7goals 1–2
- Chimera – Kelly – Grant4:35
xG 0.00–0.08 (0%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Henrique – Ritchie – Kase11:55
xG 0.13–0.92 (12%)attempts 11–14goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestBeauchemin – Bieksa3:53
xG 0.38–0.10 (79%)attempts 7–2goals 1–0
- Manson – Lindholm6:16
xG 0.32–0.20 (62%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
- Fowler – Montour18:44
xG 0.82–0.82 (50%)attempts 20–11goals 1–2
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestFisher – Watson – Sissons13:17
xG 0.61–0.19 (76%)attempts 7–13goals 0–0
- Hartnell – Bonino – Jarnkrok7:48
xG 0.39–0.09 (81%)attempts 7–7goals 0–0
- Turris – Smith – Hartman11:16
xG 0.65–0.47 (58%)attempts 18–8goals 1–0
- Johansen – Forsberg – Arvidsson12:10
xG 0.42–0.37 (53%)attempts 9–9goals 2–1
Defence pairs
- bestEllis – Ekholm19:31
xG 0.84–0.33 (72%)attempts 20–14goals 0–0
- Weber – Bitetto7:58
xG 0.67–0.22 (75%)attempts 11–7goals 1–0
- Emelin – Subban18:32
xG 0.56–1.06 (35%)attempts 8–20goals 2–2
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.
NSH's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line NSH 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, Nashville Predators win this game 60% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NSH − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).