Wed, Feb 26, 2020·STAPLES Center, Los Angeles
Pittsburgh Penguins 1, Los Angeles Kings 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 69% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 08 | 014 | 114 | 136 |
| LAK | 18 | 16 | 08 | 222 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:34LAKBlake LizottePPAssists: Sean Walker, Gabriel Vilardi · Tip-in, 0.15 xG0–1
- P2 19:28LAKTrevor LewisGWGAssists: Blake Lizotte, Trevor Moore · Wrist, 0.27 xG0–2
- P3 6:42PITBryan RustAssists: Evgeni Malkin, Patric Hornqvist · Backhand, 0.11 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 1:00PITKris Letang: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P1 4:02LAKMichael Amadio: Hooking2 min
- P1 14:59PITJack Johnson: Holding2 min
- P2 5:13LAKBlake Lizotte: Interference2 min
- P2 12:08LAKGabriel Vilardi: Tripping2 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 20:00Kopitar won the faceoff against Crosby
- 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestMarleau – Blueger – Tanev8:57
xG 0.60–0.13 (82%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Lafferty – Rodrigues – Simon5:37
xG 0.36–0.07 (83%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
- Malkin – Hornqvist – Rust13:13
xG 0.57–0.40 (59%)attempts 14–10goals 1–0
- Crosby – Zucker – Sheary13:48
xG 0.46–0.98 (32%)attempts 16–10goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestRuhwedel – Riikola10:15
xG 0.54–0.06 (90%)attempts 7–5goals 0–0
- Schultz – Pettersson14:01
xG 0.85–0.40 (68%)attempts 16–8goals 1–0
- Ruhwedel – Pettersson3:10
xG 0.09–0.05 (65%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
Los Angeles Kings
Forward lines
- bestLewis – Moore – Lizotte4:22
xG 0.75–0.17 (82%)attempts 6–6goals 1–1
- Wagner – Moore – Lizotte5:05
xG 0.02–0.23 (9%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
- Frk – Kempe – Vilardi3:48
xG 0.11–0.42 (21%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
- Brown – Kopitar – Iafallo13:26
xG 0.04–0.44 (9%)attempts 4–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Hutton – Roy16:15
xG 0.69–0.83 (45%)attempts 13–17goals 1–0
- Doughty – Ryan17:17
xG 0.44–0.86 (34%)attempts 8–21goals 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.
LAK's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line LAK is favoured, below it PIT. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 69% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (LAK − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).