Tue, Jan 7, 2020·Honda Center, Anaheim
Columbus Blue Jackets 4, Anaheim Ducks 3
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 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBJ | 18 | 214 | 15 | 427 |
| ANA | 115 | 19 | 116 | 340 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:06ANARyan GetzlafAssists: Michael Del Zotto · Tip-in, 0.07 xG0–1
- P1 11:47CBJEric RobinsonAssists: Riley Nash, Vladislav Gavrikov · Snap, 0.10 xG1–1
- P2 0:24ANAOndrej KaseUnassisted · Snap, 0.08 xG1–2
- P2 18:37CBJNathan GerbeAssists: Pierre-Luc Dubois · Tip-in, 0.15 xG2–2
- P2 19:49CBJZach WerenskiAssists: Pierre-Luc Dubois, Gustav Nyquist · Wrist, 0.13 xG3–2
- P3 18:27CBJZach WerenskiENGWGAssists: Pierre-Luc Dubois · Wrist, 0.48 xG4–2
- P3 19:16ANAOndrej KasePPAssists: Cam Fowler, Ryan Getzlaf · Tip-in, 0.10 xG4–3
Penalties (5)
- P1 5:45CBJSonny Milano: Hooking2 min
- P2 6:27ANAOndrej Kase: Hooking2 min
- P2 18:37ANADaniel Sprong: Delaying game unsuccessful challenge2 min
- P3 7:58CBJScott Harrington: Tripping2 min
- P3 8:39ANADevin Shore: 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 20:00Dubois won the faceoff against Steel
- 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. Shift data for this game is incomplete, so treat these as rough.
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forward lines
- bestNash – Robinson – Lilja6:44
xG 0.34–0.12 (73%)attempts 8–4goals 1–0
- Foligno – Jenner – Milano7:46
xG 0.21–0.19 (52%)attempts 8–4goals 0–1
- Gerbe – Nyquist – Dubois7:59
xG 0.32–0.41 (44%)attempts 4–9goals 0–1
- Wennberg – Stenlund – Bemstrom7:35
xG 0.15–0.45 (25%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Harrington – Nutivaara11:16
xG 0.33–0.40 (45%)attempts 8–9goals 0–0
- Savard – Gavrikov9:58
xG 0.14–0.28 (33%)attempts 3–10goals 1–1
- Jones – Werenski12:28
xG 0.55–0.83 (40%)attempts 13–13goals 0–1
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKase – Steel – Jones7:04
xG 0.41–0.11 (79%)attempts 9–2goals 1–0
- Silfverberg – Rakell – Lundeström3:08
xG 0.28–0.19 (59%)attempts 5–3goals 0–1
- Rakell – Kase – Lundeström2:10
xG 0.05–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Henrique – Sprong5:52
xG 0.33–0.32 (50%)attempts 6–9goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestManson – Lindholm10:48
xG 0.41–0.26 (62%)attempts 7–8goals 1–0
- Del Zotto – Larsson8:17
xG 0.46–0.40 (54%)attempts 10–9goals 1–1
- Fowler – Gudbranson10:37
xG 0.23–0.21 (53%)attempts 7–4goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it CBJ. 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 − CBJ), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).