Sun, Nov 3, 2019·Honda Center, Anaheim
Chicago Blackhawks 3, Anaheim Ducks 2 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 215 | 012 | 09 | 11 | 337 |
| ANA | 011 | 114 | 113 | 00 | 238 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 9:21CHIAdam BoqvistAssists: Alex Nylander, Jonathan Toews · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–0
- P1 15:33CHIAlex DeBrincatPPAssists: Patrick Kane, Dominik Kubalik · Snap, 0.23 xG2–0
- P2 12:39ANAErik GudbransonAssists: Ryan Getzlaf, Sam Steel · Slap, 0.01 xG2–1
- P3 6:17ANANick RitchiePPAssists: Sam Steel, Cam Fowler · Wrist, 0.08 xG2–2
- OT 0:24CHIPatrick KaneGWGAssists: Jonathan Toews, Duncan Keith · Snap, 0.17 xG3–2
Penalties (9)
- P1 5:16CHIErik Gustafsson: Tripping2 min
- P1 7:18ANAJosh Mahura: Hooking2 min
- P1 13:58ANANick Ritchie: Delaying game puck over glass2 min · PPG
- P1 14:49ANAHampus Lindholm: Tripping2 min
- P2 7:05CHIRyan Carpenter: Hooking2 min
- P3 1:25ANAHampus Lindholm: Interference2 min
- P3 2:34CHIJonathan Toews: Slashing2 min
- P3 5:18CHIJonathan Toews: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P3 13:01ANACarter Rowney: 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 20:00Toews won the faceoff against Getzlaf
- 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.
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestToews – Saad – Nylander10:55
xG 0.75–0.40 (66%)attempts 13–11goals 0–0
- Kane – Strome – DeBrincat12:44
xG 0.37–0.30 (55%)attempts 15–10goals 0–1
- Kubalik – Kampf – Dach6:08
xG 0.04–0.41 (9%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
- Shaw – Carpenter – Caggiula5:22
xG 0.02–0.56 (3%)attempts 3–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestKeith – Boqvist10:56
xG 0.26–0.20 (57%)attempts 12–7goals 0–0
- Keith – Maatta2:14
xG 0.00–0.08 (0%)attempts 3–3goals 0–1
- Maatta – Gustafsson9:54
xG 0.37–0.56 (40%)attempts 8–8goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGrant – Deslauriers – Rowney6:47
xG 0.66–0.24 (73%)attempts 9–11goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Rakell – Steel6:21
xG 0.44–0.09 (82%)attempts 9–5goals 1–0
- Silfverberg – Shore – Comtois2:30
xG 0.17–0.06 (74%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
- Shore – Steel – Comtois3:15
xG 0.06–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestDel Zotto – Larsson10:44
xG 0.44–0.11 (80%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
- Fowler – Mahura14:54
xG 0.87–0.71 (55%)attempts 16–18goals 0–0
- Gudbranson – Lindholm17:49
xG 0.66–0.58 (53%)attempts 17–17goals 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 CHI. 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 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).