Sat, Jan 11, 2020·Wells Fargo Center, Philadelphia
Tampa Bay Lightning 1, Philadelphia Flyers 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 59% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 08 | 113 | 07 | 128 |
| PHI | 07 | 06 | 010 | 023 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:27TBLPatrick MaroonGWGUnassisted · Wrist, 0.13 xG1–0
Penalties (6)
- P1 2:48TBLMitchell Stephens: Holding2 min
- P1 6:58PHIRobert Hagg: Holding2 min
- P1 13:43PHITravis Konecny: High sticking double minor4 min
- P2 5:08TBLPatrick Maroon: Slashing2 min
- P3 1:47PHIKevin Hayes: Hooking2 min
- P3 14:25TBLKevin Shattenkirk: High sticking2 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 20:00Cirelli won the faceoff against Raffl
- 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.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestGourde – Verhaeghe – Stephens9:52
xG 0.54–0.05 (92%)attempts 15–6goals 0–0
- Maroon – Paquette – Volkov3:24
xG 0.11–0.09 (54%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Killorn – Maroon – Paquette4:44
xG 0.08–0.08 (51%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Johnson – Cirelli – Volkov6:27
xG 0.01–0.07 (11%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestShattenkirk – Sergachev12:31
xG 0.72–0.36 (67%)attempts 18–10goals 0–0
- Coburn – Cernak11:05
xG 0.49–0.20 (71%)attempts 11–11goals 1–0
- Hedman – Rutta15:37
xG 0.24–0.41 (37%)attempts 19–16goals 0–0
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- Voracek – Pitlick – Raffl7:18
xG 0.16–0.13 (55%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
- Giroux – Couturier – Konecny12:01
xG 0.14–0.11 (56%)attempts 12–10goals 0–0
- Laughton – Kase – Farabee3:37
xG 0.09–0.27 (26%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
- van Riemsdyk – Hayes – Aube-Kubel8:27
xG 0.09–0.29 (23%)attempts 3–14goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Niskanen – Provorov13:01
xG 0.31–0.28 (53%)attempts 10–14goals 0–1
- Sanheim – Myers13:14
xG 0.30–0.56 (35%)attempts 11–14goals 0–0
- Hagg – Friedman11:22
xG 0.14–0.53 (21%)attempts 10–17goals 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.
PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI is favoured, below it TBL. 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 59% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).