Thu, Mar 7, 2019·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Minnesota Wild 3, Tampa Bay Lightning 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 84% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 110 | 06 | 214 | 330 |
| TBL | 011 | 09 | 05 | 025 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 10:50MINJason ZuckerGWGAssists: Ryan Donato, Ryan Suter · Tip-in, 0.08 xG1–0
- P3 6:04MINJason ZuckerAssists: Ryan Donato · Backhand, 0.09 xG2–0
- P3 18:14MINJason ZuckerENAssists: Eric Staal, Eric Fehr · Wrist, 0.69 xG3–0
Penalties (6)
- P1 7:11TBLTyler Johnson: Holding2 min
- P2 1:11MINLuke Kunin: Holding2 min
- P2 12:26TBLMathieu Joseph: Hooking2 min
- P3 9:50TBLNikita Kucherov: Slashing2 min
- P3 11:13TBLCedric Paquette: Hooking2 min
- P3 14:53MINJared Spurgeon: Slashing2 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 20:00Kunin won the faceoff against Cirelli
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestAberg – Greenway – Eriksson Ek8:37
xG 0.56–0.18 (75%)attempts 12–6goals 0–0
- Parise – Fiala – Eriksson Ek2:05
xG 0.05–0.07 (43%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- Parise – Fiala – Kunin6:56
xG 0.14–0.17 (46%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
- Staal – Zucker – Donato7:51
xG 0.25–0.36 (40%)attempts 11–7goals 2–0
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Spurgeon17:51
xG 0.37–0.16 (70%)attempts 17–13goals 1–0
- Pateryn – Brodin18:23
xG 0.64–0.66 (49%)attempts 18–19goals 0–0
- Seeler – Hunt7:28
xG 0.19–0.37 (34%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestKillorn – Miller – Cirelli5:38
xG 0.46–0.09 (84%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
- Paquette – Erne – Joseph7:22
xG 0.25–0.02 (93%)attempts 11–2goals 0–0
- Johnson – Kucherov – Point9:56
xG 0.31–0.31 (50%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
- Stamkos – Palat – Gourde5:54
xG 0.04–0.47 (7%)attempts 4–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestGirardi – Hedman12:24
xG 0.55–0.39 (58%)attempts 20–11goals 0–2
- Coburn – Sergachev12:19
xG 0.34–0.34 (49%)attempts 8–12goals 0–0
- McDonagh – Cernak14:46
xG 0.23–0.44 (35%)attempts 12–14goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it MIN. 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 84% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).