Tue, Feb 25, 2020·Gila River Arena, Glendale
Florida Panthers 2, Arizona Coyotes 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Arizona Coyotes win this game 58% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLA | 08 | 17 | 111 | 226 |
| ARI | 112 | 012 | 014 | 138 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 14:16ARIBrad RichardsonSHAssists: Vinnie Hinostroza, Niklas Hjalmarsson · Wrist, 0.20 xG0–1
- P2 11:03FLAFrank VatranoAssists: Mike Hoffman, Aaron Ekblad · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–1
- P3 8:50FLAMike HoffmanPPGWGAssists: Jonathan Huberdeau, Aleksander Barkov · Slap, 0.17 xG2–1
Penalties (2)
- P1 13:43ARIBarrett Hayton: Tripping2 min
- P3 8:02ARIOliver Ekman-Larsson: Tripping2 min · PPG
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 20:00Richardson won the faceoff against Barkov
- 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.
Florida Panthers
Forward lines
- Dadonov – Huberdeau – Barkov12:57
xG 0.49–0.60 (45%)attempts 17–14goals 0–0
- Connolly – Wallmark – Saarela10:12
xG 0.27–0.63 (30%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
- Hoffman – Haula – Vatrano10:45
xG 0.12–0.49 (19%)attempts 5–12goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- Yandle – Matheson9:25
xG 0.21–0.57 (27%)attempts 7–13goals 0–0
- Weegar – Ekblad13:32
xG 0.25–0.62 (29%)attempts 11–13goals 1–0
- Stralman – Stillman15:48
xG 0.52–0.98 (35%)attempts 14–16goals 0–0
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestStepan – Crouse – Keller10:36
xG 0.91–0.36 (72%)attempts 17–12goals 0–0
- Kessel – Garland – Hayton10:38
xG 0.55–0.18 (76%)attempts 12–8goals 0–0
- Hall – Schmaltz – Dvorak11:22
xG 0.41–0.33 (56%)attempts 7–10goals 0–1
- Richardson – Soderberg – Hinostroza10:11
xG 0.22–0.15 (60%)attempts 8–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEkman-Larsson – Oesterle2:46
xG 0.52–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–0goals 0–0
- Goligoski – Ness11:43
xG 0.71–0.24 (75%)attempts 14–11goals 0–0
- Hjalmarsson – Oesterle15:28
xG 0.56–0.36 (61%)attempts 11–13goals 0–1
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.
ARI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ARI is favoured, below it FLA. 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, Arizona Coyotes win this game 58% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ARI − FLA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).