Thu, Apr 29, 2021·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Dallas Stars 0, Tampa Bay Lightning 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 80% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAL | 06 | 012 | 02 | 020 |
| TBL | 114 | 02 | 212 | 328 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 14:41TBLOndrej PalatGWGUnassisted · Wrist, 0.09 xG0–1
- P3 8:27TBLBlake ColemanUnassisted · Wrist, 0.32 xG0–2
- P3 18:39TBLBrayden PointENAssists: Andrei Vasilevskiy · Wrist, 0.61 xG0–3
Penalties (4)
- P1 6:25DALJamie Benn: Interference2 min
- P2 1:20TBLLuke Schenn: Tripping2 min
- P3 7:47TBLAnthony Cirelli: High sticking2 min
- P3 8:27DALJohn Klingberg: Penalty shot tripping on breakaway0 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 20:00Benn won the faceoff against Gourde
- 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.
Dallas Stars
Forward lines
- bestBenn – Gurianov – Kiviranta3:27
xG 0.11–0.02 (83%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Pavelski – Hintz – Robertson12:25
xG 0.22–0.19 (55%)attempts 12–7goals 0–0
- Comeau – Cogliano – Faksa10:15
xG 0.31–0.36 (46%)attempts 8–6goals 0–1
- Benn – Dickinson – Gurianov8:33
xG 0.11–0.56 (16%)attempts 5–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSekera – Hanley6:26
xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Oleksiak – Heiskanen14:58
xG 0.61–0.55 (53%)attempts 12–10goals 0–1
- Klingberg – Hanley2:10
xG 0.10–0.08 (55%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestColeman – Goodrow – Gourde13:17
xG 0.62–0.22 (74%)attempts 15–9goals 0–0
- Palat – Point – Barré-Boulet12:01
xG 0.37–0.31 (55%)attempts 10–10goals 1–0
- Killorn – Johnson – Cirelli11:28
xG 0.06–0.16 (27%)attempts 2–8goals 0–0
- Maroon – Joseph – Colton8:35
xG 0.23–0.48 (32%)attempts 5–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMcDonagh – Savard12:38
xG 0.65–0.10 (87%)attempts 13–9goals 0–0
- Savard – Sergachev2:07
xG 0.16–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Cernak – Sergachev4:50
xG 0.39–0.33 (54%)attempts 2–6goals 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 DAL. 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 80% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − DAL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).