Sat, Jan 11, 2020·United Center, Chicago
Anaheim Ducks 2, Chicago Blackhawks 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 110 | 09 | 118 | 237 |
| CHI | 18 | 217 | 18 | 433 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:37ANAMax JonesAssists: Ondrej Kase · Snap, 0.32 xG1–0
- P1 8:13CHIJonathan ToewsUnassisted · Wrist, 0.23 xG1–1
- P2 4:20CHIDominik KubalikAssists: Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews · Backhand, 0.17 xG1–2
- P2 12:21CHIDominik KubalikGWGAssists: Connor Murphy, Zack Smith · Wrist, 0.37 xG1–3
- P3 2:29ANARickard RakellAssists: Isac Lundeström, Maxime Comtois · Wrist, 0.27 xG2–3
- P3 3:59CHIOlli MaattaAssists: Alex DeBrincat, David Kampf · Slap, 0.02 xG2–4
Penalties (2)
- P1 10:57ANAErik Gudbranson: Tripping2 min
- P2 0:36CHIRyan Carpenter: Delaying game face off violation2 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 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestHenrique – Kase – Steel4:28
xG 0.56–0.12 (83%)attempts 9–3goals 0–1
- Getzlaf – Rakell – Sprong3:09
xG 0.80–0.52 (60%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
- Rakell – Comtois – Lundeström9:59
xG 0.89–0.67 (57%)attempts 10–11goals 1–0
- Deslauriers – Shore – Rowney6:13
xG 0.13–0.10 (55%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestManson – Lindholm17:10
xG 2.05–1.57 (57%)attempts 23–17goals 1–2
- Gudbranson – Lindholm2:18
xG 0.35–0.35 (50%)attempts 2–8goals 1–1
- Fowler – Gudbranson16:16
xG 0.86–0.91 (48%)attempts 17–12goals 0–1
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestToews – Kubalik – Quenneville5:18
xG 0.57–0.12 (83%)attempts 4–6goals 1–0
- Smith – Highmore – Caggiula9:43
xG 1.02–0.60 (63%)attempts 17–5goals 0–1
- Kane – Carpenter – Nylander6:16
xG 0.37–0.16 (70%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
- Carpenter – Quenneville – Nylander3:48
xG 0.16–0.10 (60%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMaatta – Koekkoek15:10
xG 1.35–0.51 (73%)attempts 19–12goals 2–0
- Murphy – Gustafsson17:10
xG 2.07–1.63 (56%)attempts 27–19goals 1–0
- Keith – Boqvist15:27
xG 0.79–1.26 (38%)attempts 13–20goals 1–1
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.
CHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CHI is favoured, below it ANA. 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, Chicago Blackhawks win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CHI − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).