Sun, Oct 20, 2019·Honda Center, Anaheim
Calgary Flames 2, Anaheim Ducks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 73% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGY | 011 | 112 | 16 | 229 |
| ANA | 09 | 110 | 011 | 130 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 0:12ANAJakob SilfverbergAssists: Hampus Lindholm, Josh Manson · Wrist, 0.11 xG0–1
- P2 15:32CGYMichael StoneAssists: Johnny Gaudreau, TJ Brodie · Slap, 0.04 xG1–1
- P3 8:57CGYMikael BacklundGWGAssists: Matthew Tkachuk, Austin Czarnik · Snap, 0.07 xG2–1
Penalties (3)
- P1 12:48CGYMark Jankowski: Tripping2 min
- P2 6:10CGYMichael Stone: Tripping2 min
- P3 10:17CGYElias Lindholm: Tripping2 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 20:00Lindholm won the faceoff against Henrique
- 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.
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestRieder – Quine – Jankowski8:11
xG 0.77–0.15 (84%)attempts 20–6goals 0–0
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Monahan14:17
xG 0.50–0.39 (56%)attempts 17–10goals 1–1
- Frolik – Backlund – Tkachuk2:25
xG 0.09–0.02 (80%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Backlund – Czarnik – Tkachuk11:36
xG 0.37–0.51 (42%)attempts 9–10goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestGiordano – Hamonic2:29
xG 0.39–0.06 (87%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Hamonic – Hanifin18:39
xG 0.66–0.65 (51%)attempts 14–14goals 1–0
- Hanifin – Andersson2:23
xG 0.08–0.11 (42%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestHenrique – Silfverberg – Rakell13:16
xG 0.94–0.10 (90%)attempts 17–6goals 1–0
- Ritchie – Terry – Steel7:16
xG 0.22–0.12 (66%)attempts 10–1goals 0–0
- Grant – Deslauriers – Rowney5:56
xG 0.19–0.44 (30%)attempts 6–10goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Kase – Comtois12:31
xG 0.25–0.67 (27%)attempts 5–17goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestDel Zotto – Fowler14:57
xG 1.00–0.59 (63%)attempts 18–16goals 0–2
- Holzer – Larsson15:03
xG 0.57–0.50 (53%)attempts 15–13goals 0–0
- Manson – Lindholm18:42
xG 0.55–0.70 (44%)attempts 14–19goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it CGY. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 73% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − CGY), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).