Sun, Mar 8, 2020·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
Columbus Blue Jackets 2, Vancouver Canucks 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Columbus Blue Jackets win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBJ | 03 | 27 | 012 | 222 |
| VAN | 06 | 09 | 112 | 127 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:18CBJEmil BemstromAssists: Pierre-Luc Dubois, Alexander Wennberg · Wrist, 0.12 xG1–0
- P2 19:32CBJEric RobinsonGWGAssists: David Savard, Vladislav Gavrikov · Slap, 0.10 xG2–0
- P3 8:19VANElias PetterssonAssists: Oscar Fantenberg · Wrist, 0.15 xG2–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 8:11CBJDavid Savard: Interference2 min
- P1 19:48VANQuinn Hughes: Hooking2 min
- P2 7:44CBJDavid Savard: High sticking2 min
- P3 6:07VANElias Pettersson: Elbowing2 min
- P3 11:10CBJEmil Bemstrom: Holding2 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 20:00Horvat won the faceoff against Dubois
- 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.
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forward lines
- bestWennberg – Dubois – Bemstrom11:28
xG 0.54–0.16 (77%)attempts 12–9goals 1–0
- Foligno – Nyquist – Jenner11:34
xG 0.39–0.15 (72%)attempts 10–8goals 0–0
- Matteau – Shore – Lilja4:28
xG 0.15–0.15 (51%)attempts 7–5goals 0–0
- Nash – Stenlund – Robinson9:01
xG 0.20–0.49 (29%)attempts 7–11goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestMurray – Werenski16:30
xG 0.81–0.32 (71%)attempts 15–12goals 0–0
- Savard – Gavrikov14:49
xG 0.62–0.28 (69%)attempts 16–12goals 2–0
- Nutivaara – Peeke10:35
xG 0.22–0.24 (48%)attempts 10–11goals 0–0
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestToffoli – Pearson – Horvat3:16
xG 0.19–0.09 (68%)attempts 7–1goals 0–0
- Pearson – Horvat – Virtanen5:00
xG 0.22–0.12 (64%)attempts 6–4goals 0–1
- Miller – Virtanen – Pettersson2:42
xG 0.11–0.01 (89%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Toffoli – Miller – Pettersson7:39
xG 0.06–0.05 (55%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMyers – Hughes6:28
xG 0.53–0.24 (69%)attempts 7–7goals 1–1
- Tanev – Hughes11:29
xG 0.47–0.21 (69%)attempts 11–5goals 0–0
- Edler – Stecher11:01
xG 0.26–0.24 (53%)attempts 12–8goals 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.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN is favoured, below it CBJ. 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, Columbus Blue Jackets win this game 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − CBJ), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).