Thu, Feb 13, 2020·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Edmonton Oilers 1, Tampa Bay Lightning 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 61% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDM | 010 | 17 | 013 | 130 |
| TBL | 014 | 213 | 110 | 337 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 4:39TBLPatrick MaroonAssists: Cameron Gaunce, Luke Schenn · Wrist, 0.10 xG0–1
- P2 9:36EDMCaleb JonesAssists: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Leon Draisaitl · Wrist, 0.06 xG1–1
- P2 13:01TBLYanni GourdeSHGWGUnassisted · Wrist, 0.26 xG1–2
- P3 19:04TBLCedric PaquetteENAssists: Brayden Point, Alex Killorn · Wrist, 0.66 xG1–3
Penalties (2)
- P2 1:18TBLCedric Paquette: Hooking2 min
- P2 11:44TBLAlexander Volkov: Too many men on the ice2 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 20:00Sheahan won the faceoff against Johnson
- 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.
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- bestGagner – Chiasson – Haas9:36
xG 0.72–0.22 (77%)attempts 11–7goals 0–0
- Khaira – Cave – Russell8:51
xG 0.25–0.24 (51%)attempts 4–9goals 0–1
- Nugent-Hopkins – Draisaitl – Yamamoto18:25
xG 0.40–0.68 (37%)attempts 11–19goals 1–0
- Kassian – Sheahan – Archibald11:21
xG 0.39–0.74 (34%)attempts 10–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLarsson – Klefbom15:32
xG 0.57–0.32 (64%)attempts 12–12goals 0–1
- Benning – Jones10:13
xG 0.55–0.31 (64%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Benning – Nurse2:45
xG 0.04–0.15 (23%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- Palat – Gourde – Point14:36
xG 0.62–0.61 (50%)attempts 18–9goals 0–0
- Killorn – Johnson – Joseph11:22
xG 0.66–0.65 (50%)attempts 10–15goals 0–0
- Maroon – Paquette – Stephens2:14
xG 0.08–0.10 (46%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Verhaeghe – Stephens – Volkov7:53
xG 0.08–0.13 (39%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHedman – Cernak14:36
xG 0.55–0.23 (71%)attempts 16–6goals 0–1
- Shattenkirk – Hedman3:58
xG 0.13–0.03 (81%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Shattenkirk – Sergachev14:05
xG 0.94–0.95 (50%)attempts 15–18goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it EDM. 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 61% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − EDM), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).