Sat, Nov 2, 2019·PPG Paints Arena, Pittsburgh
Edmonton Oilers 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 1 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 64% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDM | 08 | 17 | 07 | 16 | 228 |
| PIT | 018 | 017 | 116 | 01 | 152 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:21EDMColby CaveAssists: Matt Benning, Markus Granlund · Wrist, 0.17 xG1–0
- P3 13:14PITBrian DumoulinSHAssists: Bryan Rust · Snap, 0.20 xG1–1
- OT 2:37EDMLeon DraisaitlGWGUnassisted · Wrist, 0.28 xG2–1
Penalties (7)
- P2 8:42EDMMatt Benning: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P2 10:52EDMMatt Benning: Hooking2 min
- P2 17:31EDMDarnell Nurse: High sticking2 min
- P3 1:27EDMJujhar Khaira: Holding2 min
- P3 3:31PITNick Bjugstad: Hooking2 min
- P3 12:22PITJohn Marino: Hooking2 min
- P3 13:32EDMZack Kassian: Interference2 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
- bestGranlund – Cave – Russell6:18
xG 0.36–0.10 (79%)attempts 6–7goals 1–0
- Neal – Chiasson – Haas7:17
xG 0.34–0.21 (62%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Gagner – Nugent-Hopkins – Khaira9:38
xG 0.26–0.58 (31%)attempts 5–12goals 0–0
- Kassian – Draisaitl – McDavid13:57
xG 0.09–1.20 (7%)attempts 3–22goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Nurse – Bear13:29
xG 0.21–0.57 (27%)attempts 6–13goals 0–0
- Russell – Benning10:30
xG 0.36–0.72 (33%)attempts 9–15goals 1–0
- Klefbom – Persson14:04
xG 0.35–0.99 (26%)attempts 7–24goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestBlueger – Tanev – Aston-Reese10:06
xG 0.71–0.16 (82%)attempts 16–3goals 0–0
- Crosby – Guentzel – Simon13:04
xG 0.89–0.34 (72%)attempts 17–8goals 0–1
- Malkin – Hornqvist – Galchenyuk9:23
xG 0.72–0.39 (65%)attempts 15–7goals 0–0
- Bjugstad – Rust – McCann7:23
xG 0.21–0.13 (63%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Dumoulin16:07
xG 1.05–0.12 (90%)attempts 25–5goals 0–0
- Johnson – Marino10:37
xG 0.74–0.06 (93%)attempts 16–3goals 0–0
- Schultz – Pettersson15:42
xG 0.68–1.07 (39%)attempts 15–17goals 0–1
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 64% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − EDM), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).