Tue, Jan 15, 2019·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Los Angeles Kings 2, Minnesota Wild 3 (SO)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 64% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | SO | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAK | 08 | 112 | 111 | 02 | 0 | 233 |
| MIN | 014 | 114 | 19 | 05 | 1 | 342 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 10:16MINNino NiederreiterAssists: Joel Eriksson Ek, Marcus Foligno · Wrist, 0.04 xG0–1
- P2 16:03LAKIlya KovalchukAssists: Dustin Brown, Dion Phaneuf · Wrist, 0.27 xG1–1
- P3 7:13MINEric StaalAssists: Ryan Suter, Jared Spurgeon · Deflected, 0.13 xG1–2
- P3 17:30LAKJeff CarterAssists: Adrian Kempe, Tyler Toffoli · Wrist, 0.17 xG2–2
Shootout
- 1. MIN Luke Kunin stopped
- 2. LAK Ilya Kovalchuk stopped
- 3. MIN Jason Zucker scored
- 4. LAK Anze Kopitar stopped
- 5. MIN Zach Parise stopped
- 6. LAK Dustin Brown stopped
Penalties (3)
- P2 3:01MINJoel Eriksson Ek: Hooking2 min
- P2 16:42LAKTyler Toffoli: Hooking2 min
- OT 2:00LAKDrew Doughty: Interference goalkeeper2 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 Kopitar
- 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.
Los Angeles Kings
Forward lines
- bestHagelin – Toffoli – Kempe11:03
xG 0.59–0.31 (66%)attempts 9–8goals 0–1
- Kovalchuk – Brown – Kopitar15:43
xG 0.50–0.58 (46%)attempts 16–17goals 1–0
- Carter – Leipsic – Iafallo12:36
xG 0.27–0.69 (28%)attempts 12–15goals 0–0
- Thompson – Clifford – Luff7:44
xG 0.04–0.65 (6%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMartinez – Doughty3:18
xG 0.27–0.01 (95%)attempts 7–1goals 1–0
- Phaneuf – Fantenberg5:25
xG 0.06–0.05 (56%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Doughty – Forbort11:08
xG 0.21–0.27 (43%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestFoligno – Niederreiter – Eriksson Ek7:49
xG 0.32–0.07 (82%)attempts 10–4goals 1–0
- Parise – Coyle – Kunin10:53
xG 0.54–0.50 (52%)attempts 7–8goals 0–1
- Koivu – Zucker – Granlund15:11
xG 0.47–0.53 (47%)attempts 15–9goals 0–0
- Staal – Brown – Greenway14:22
xG 0.63–0.70 (47%)attempts 14–18goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestProsser – Seeler7:57
xG 0.77–0.05 (94%)attempts 8–5goals 0–0
- Pateryn – Brodin21:58
xG 0.70–0.71 (50%)attempts 17–20goals 1–0
- Suter – Spurgeon23:16
xG 1.10–1.28 (46%)attempts 30–19goals 1–2
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it LAK. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 64% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − LAK), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).