Sat, Dec 15, 2018·Nationwide Arena, Columbus
Anaheim Ducks 2, Columbus Blue Jackets 1 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Columbus Blue Jackets win this game 84% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 17 | 07 | 07 | 11 | 222 |
| CBJ | 111 | 010 | 016 | 00 | 137 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 12:06CBJMarkus NutivaaraAssists: Boone Jenner · Slap, 0.04 xG0–1
- P1 15:56ANADaniel SprongAssists: Josh Manson · Wrist, 0.06 xG1–1
- OT 1:19ANADaniel SprongGWGAssists: Adam Henrique · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 8:33ANANick Ritchie: Hooking2 min
- P1 17:30CBJRiley Nash: Tripping2 min
- P2 14:44ANAPontus Aberg: Slashing2 min
- P3 6:52CBJRiley Nash: Roughing2 min
- P3 6:52ANAJake Dotchin: Roughing2 min
- P3 10:05ANAJake Dotchin: 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 20:00Jenner won the faceoff against Kesler
- 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
- Henrique – Ritchie – Sprong10:31
xG 0.19–0.37 (34%)attempts 6–10goals 1–0
- Kesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg9:16
xG 0.20–0.50 (29%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Aberg – Kase12:26
xG 0.35–0.71 (33%)attempts 14–10goals 0–0
- Street – Rowney – Sherwood5:24
xG 0.04–0.74 (5%)attempts 1–10goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestLindholm – Montour18:20
xG 0.58–0.45 (56%)attempts 17–11goals 0–0
- Manson – Dotchin3:06
xG 0.02–0.20 (9%)attempts 1–6goals 0–0
- Manson – Larsson12:02
xG 0.25–0.77 (24%)attempts 13–17goals 1–1
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forward lines
- bestDubinsky – Nash – Hannikainen7:02
xG 0.73–0.19 (79%)attempts 7–4goals 0–0
- Foligno – Jenner – Anderson11:34
xG 0.58–0.18 (77%)attempts 12–7goals 1–0
- Sedlak – Bjorkstrand – Wennberg6:13
xG 0.24–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–0goals 0–0
- Atkinson – Panarin – Dubois13:14
xG 0.62–0.50 (55%)attempts 15–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMurray – Jones19:24
xG 1.20–0.38 (76%)attempts 23–19goals 0–0
- Harrington – Nutivaara8:49
xG 0.98–0.19 (84%)attempts 13–5goals 1–1
- Savard – Werenski15:10
xG 0.33–0.29 (54%)attempts 14–9goals 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.
CBJ's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CBJ 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, Columbus Blue Jackets win this game 84% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CBJ − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).