Tue, Jan 1, 2019·Bridgestone Arena, Nashville
Philadelphia Flyers 0, Nashville Predators 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 70% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHI | 013 | 012 | 07 | 032 |
| NSH | 06 | 216 | 28 | 430 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 2:03NSHCraig SmithGWGAssists: Kevin Fiala · Wrist, 0.04 xG0–1
- P2 12:03NSHViktor ArvidssonAssists: Ryan Johansen, Ryan Hartman · Wrist, 0.16 xG0–2
- P3 6:15NSHViktor ArvidssonAssists: Ryan Ellis · Wrist, 0.03 xG0–3
- P3 11:37NSHRocco GrimaldiAssists: Zac Rinaldo · Wrist, 0.07 xG0–4
Penalties (4)
- P2 3:38NSHP.K. Subban: Interference2 min
- P2 16:02NSHKevin Fiala: Tripping2 min
- P3 0:22PHIMichael Raffl: Interference2 min
- P3 18:17PHIMichael Raffl: Holding2 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 20:00Johansen won the faceoff against Giroux
- 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.
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestVoracek – Couturier – Laughton9:56
xG 0.87–0.29 (75%)attempts 11–9goals 0–1
- van Riemsdyk – Simmonds – Weal11:39
xG 0.59–0.24 (71%)attempts 18–11goals 0–1
- Weise – Varone – Lindblom8:19
xG 0.29–0.12 (72%)attempts 7–6goals 0–0
- Giroux – Voracek – Couturier2:48
xG 0.10–0.02 (83%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSanheim – Provorov15:10
xG 1.01–0.33 (75%)attempts 15–17goals 0–1
- MacDonald – Gudas13:48
xG 0.65–0.13 (83%)attempts 20–9goals 0–0
- Gostisbehere – Hagg14:15
xG 0.74–0.51 (59%)attempts 17–17goals 0–1
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestJohansen – Hartman – Arvidsson12:05
xG 0.77–0.58 (57%)attempts 17–12goals 2–0
- Smith – Jarnkrok – Fiala12:15
xG 0.35–0.44 (44%)attempts 15–12goals 1–0
- Rinaldo – Grimaldi – Gaudreau5:42
xG 0.09–0.22 (29%)attempts 4–5goals 1–0
- Bonino – Watson – Salomaki13:33
xG 0.08–0.56 (13%)attempts 6–15goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Josi – Ellis17:36
xG 0.70–0.93 (43%)attempts 18–23goals 2–0
- Hamhuis – Irwin13:06
xG 0.22–0.45 (33%)attempts 11–11goals 1–0
- Subban – Ekholm18:26
xG 0.47–0.94 (33%)attempts 18–18goals 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.
NSH's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line NSH is favoured, below it PHI. 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, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 70% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NSH − PHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).