Skip to content
Ice Lab

Mon, Nov 25, 2019·Wells Fargo Center, Philadelphia

Vancouver Canucks 1, Philadelphia Flyers 2

Expected result

Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 69% of the time.

PHI winsVAN wins

By period

Goals and shots on goal in each period.

TeamP1P2P3Total
VAN190404117
PHI0811719234

Goals, with shots on goal in grey.

Scoring

Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.

  1. P1 10:34VANJ.T. MillerAssists: Bo Horvat · Snap, 0.16 xG1–0
  2. P2 5:54PHISean CouturierAssists: Jakub Voracek, Robert Hagg · Wrist, 0.19 xG1–1
  3. P3 11:27PHIJakub VoracekGWGAssists: Justin Braun, Sean Couturier · Snap, 0.06 xG1–2
Penalties (3)
  1. P1 13:14VANJ.T. Miller: Slashing2 min
  2. P2 1:24PHIOskar Lindblom: Cross checking2 min
  3. P3 4:57PHIJustin Braun: 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.

VAN00 SOG · 0.0 xG

20:00

P1

0.0 xG · 0 SOG0PHI
45% to win55% to win
← VAN attackPHI attack →
  1. P1 20:00Horvat won the faceoff against Hayes
  • Goal
  • Shot
  • Miss
  • Block
  • Hit
  • Takeaway
  • Giveaway
  • Faceoff
  • Penalty

The numbers

Team totals, side by side.

VANPHI
17Shots on goal34
1.0Expected goals2.0
41Shot attempts60
20Faceoffs won32
2Power plays1
2Penalty minutes4
19Hits17
20Blocked shots16
14Giveaways12
4Takeaways5

Line combinations that worked

Model-based

Each team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.

Vancouver Canucks

Forward lines

  1. Eriksson – Graovac – Virtanen6:00

    xG 0.05–0.02 (71%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0

  2. Leivo – Schaller – Gaudette5:44

    xG 0.12–0.11 (52%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0

  3. Miller – Boeser – Pettersson3:32

    xG 0.01–0.02 (41%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0

  4. Pearson – Boeser – Pettersson8:16

    xG 0.02–0.07 (22%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. bestBenn – Stecher10:57

    xG 0.30–0.20 (60%)attempts 12–7goals 1–0

  2. Stecher – Hughes2:43

    xG 0.00–0.14 (0%)attempts 1–5goals 0–0

  3. Tanev – Hughes13:59

    xG 0.11–0.32 (26%)attempts 8–14goals 0–1

Philadelphia Flyers

Forward lines

  1. bestGiroux – Konecny – Frost12:08

    xG 0.76–0.19 (80%)attempts 22–12goals 0–0

  2. Voracek – Couturier – Lindblom13:05

    xG 0.55–0.10 (85%)attempts 15–10goals 2–0

  3. Hayes – Laughton – Farabee11:43

    xG 0.31–0.15 (68%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0

  4. van Riemsdyk – Pitlick – Raffl6:37

    xG 0.08–0.16 (32%)attempts 5–2goals 0–1

Defence pairs

  1. bestBraun – Sanheim13:58

    xG 0.84–0.28 (75%)attempts 24–12goals 1–0

  2. Niskanen – Provorov18:42

    xG 0.31–0.03 (92%)attempts 17–9goals 0–0

  3. Hagg – Myers13:11

    xG 0.45–0.26 (63%)attempts 10–8goals 1–1

How the game flowed

Model-based

Chance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.

Expected goals flow

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.

PHI 2.0 xGVAN 1.0 xG
00.511.52P1P2P3EndxG

Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute

PHIVAN

Win probability

Model-based

How each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.

Win probability

PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI is favoured, below it VAN. Dots are goals.

Excitement 28/100 · #799 of 1082 this seasonSwing 1.13 · 3 goals in reachComeback index 30% (winner's lowest chance)
VAN 100%5050%50PHI 100%P1P2P3EndBiggest swing +32 pts

Did the better team win?

Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.

Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 69% of the time.

PHI winsVAN wins

Simulated goal difference (PHI − VAN), 10,000 replays

-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7

The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).