Thu, Feb 18, 2021·Honda Center, Anaheim
Minnesota Wild 3, Anaheim Ducks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 69% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 29 | 07 | 111 | 327 |
| ANA | 03 | 16 | 08 | 117 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:27MINRyan HartmanUnassisted · Wrist, 0.11 xG1–0
- P1 8:05MINKevin FialaGWGAssists: Mats Zuccarello · Tip-in, 0.18 xG2–0
- P2 12:00ANASam SteelAssists: Danton Heinen, Jakob Silfverberg · Backhand, 0.10 xG2–1
- P3 16:15MINMarcus FolignoAssists: Zach Parise, Nick Bonino · Tip-in, 0.08 xG3–1
Penalties (9)
- P1 8:49ANAJani Hakanpää: Tripping2 min
- P1 13:47MINKevin Fiala: Holding the stick2 min
- P1 14:42MINMarcus Foligno: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P2 1:32ANAHampus Lindholm: Tripping2 min
- P2 7:12ANAKevin Shattenkirk: Cross checking2 min
- P2 13:42ANADerek Grant: Roughing2 min
- P2 13:42MINKevin Fiala: Roughing2 min
- P3 1:59ANARyan Getzlaf: Slashing2 min
- P3 14:15ANACarter Rowney: 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 20:00Lundeström won the faceoff against Eriksson Ek
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestZuccarello – Fiala – Eriksson Ek9:39
xG 0.86–0.53 (62%)attempts 10–10goals 1–0
- Bonino – Hartman – Sturm6:25
xG 0.27–0.03 (91%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Parise – Hartman – Kaprizov2:02
xG 0.11–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Johansson – Foligno – Bjugstad3:16
xG 0.08–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestDumba – Mermis11:47
xG 0.99–0.30 (77%)attempts 11–6goals 2–0
- Cole – Mermis2:18
xG 0.14–0.00 (97%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Suter – Addison11:26
xG 0.63–0.70 (47%)attempts 11–12goals 0–1
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestGrant – Rowney – Jones6:56
xG 0.32–0.10 (77%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
- Silfverberg – Heinen – Steel6:15
xG 0.17–0.19 (46%)attempts 4–3goals 1–1
- Getzlaf – Henrique – Terry5:26
xG 0.20–0.32 (38%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Rakell – Comtois – Lundeström9:39
xG 0.50–1.16 (30%)attempts 10–11goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestFowler – Hakanpää11:03
xG 0.76–0.45 (63%)attempts 17–6goals 1–0
- Hakanpää – Hutton2:16
xG 0.00–0.04 (0%)attempts 0–5goals 0–0
- Shattenkirk – Fowler3:21
xG 0.03–0.07 (28%)attempts 1–1goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 69% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).