Wed, Feb 13, 2019·PPG Paints Arena, Pittsburgh
Edmonton Oilers 1, Pittsburgh Penguins 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 58% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDM | 111 | 016 | 012 | 139 |
| PIT | 08 | 211 | 115 | 334 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:45EDMLeon DraisaitlAssists: Connor McDavid, Oscar Klefbom · Snap, 0.16 xG1–0
- P2 2:30PITBryan RustSHAssists: Matt Cullen, Brian Dumoulin · Backhand, 0.09 xG1–1
- P2 6:10PITTeddy BluegerGWGAssists: Kris Letang, Sidney Crosby · Wrist, 0.28 xG1–2
- P3 19:00PITJared McCannENUnassisted · Wrist, 0.54 xG1–3
Penalties (4)
- P2 1:55PITTanner Pearson: Closing hand on puck2 min
- P2 11:48PITBryan Rust: Holding2 min
- P2 15:24EDMAdam Larsson: Elbowing2 min
- P2 17:25PITKris Letang: Penalty shot hooking on breakaway0 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 20:00Crosby won the faceoff against McDavid
- 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.
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- bestChiasson – Nugent-Hopkins – Khaira8:58
xG 0.50–0.12 (81%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Rieder – Rattie – Cave5:56
xG 0.32–0.19 (63%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Lucic – Malone – Puljujarvi6:32
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Lucic – Malone – Chiasson2:09
xG 0.04–0.01 (79%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLarsson – Klefbom19:35
xG 0.81–0.46 (64%)attempts 18–13goals 1–0
- Petrovic – Gravel9:45
xG 0.79–0.64 (55%)attempts 16–6goals 0–0
- Russell – Nurse18:30
xG 0.63–0.94 (40%)attempts 17–19goals 0–1
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestCrosby – Rust – Guentzel15:40
xG 1.01–0.57 (64%)attempts 16–14goals 0–0
- Hornqvist – Blueger – McCann9:42
xG 0.13–0.29 (30%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
- Cullen – Wilson – Aston-Reese7:52
xG 0.37–0.63 (37%)attempts 4–9goals 0–0
- Kessel – Bjugstad – Pearson12:10
xG 0.20–0.76 (21%)attempts 8–17goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Dumoulin16:40
xG 1.44–1.07 (57%)attempts 19–18goals 0–1
- Ruhwedel – Pettersson14:43
xG 0.24–0.36 (40%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
- Johnson – Riikola15:39
xG 0.16–0.74 (18%)attempts 7–15goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it EDM. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 58% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − EDM), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).