Wed, Mar 24, 2021·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Anaheim Ducks 2, Minnesota Wild 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 63% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 111 | 17 | 012 | 230 |
| MIN | 211 | 19 | 06 | 326 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:46MINJared SpurgeonAssists: Ryan Suter, Kirill Kaprizov · Tip-in, 0.08 xG0–1
- P1 8:10ANADerek GrantAssists: Josh Manson, Ryan Getzlaf · Wrist, 0.10 xG1–1
- P1 19:52MINJared SpurgeonPPAssists: Ryan Suter · Tip-in, 0.07 xG1–2
- P2 0:22ANAMaxime ComtoisAssists: Isac Lundeström · Deflected, 0.21 xG2–2
- P2 7:01MINNico SturmGWGAssists: Nick Bjugstad, Carson Soucy · Wrist, 0.54 xG2–3
Penalties (9)
- P1 9:21MINJoseph Cramarossa: Fighting5 min
- P1 9:21ANAMax Jones: Fighting5 min
- P1 9:34ANARyan Getzlaf: Instigator2 min
- P1 9:34ANARyan Getzlaf: Fighting5 min
- P1 9:34MINCarson Soucy: Fighting5 min
- P1 9:34ANARyan Getzlaf: Misconduct10 min
- P1 19:04ANAJani Hakanpää: Interference2 min · PPG
- P2 4:05ANATrevor Zegras: Hooking2 min
- P3 19:58MINNick Bonino: Delaying game2 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 20:00Eriksson Ek won the faceoff against Lundeström
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestRakell – Comtois – Lundeström12:10
xG 0.53–0.41 (57%)attempts 12–10goals 1–0
- Getzlaf – Grant – Jones7:55
xG 0.49–0.37 (57%)attempts 12–9goals 1–0
- Henrique – Terry – Zegras9:55
xG 0.12–0.11 (52%)attempts 5–2goals 0–1
- Silfverberg – Deslauriers – Steel9:04
xG 0.13–0.21 (39%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestFowler – Hakanpää16:11
xG 0.50–0.29 (63%)attempts 16–11goals 1–1
- Shattenkirk – Welinski16:42
xG 0.52–0.54 (49%)attempts 19–12goals 0–0
- Manson – Drysdale13:46
xG 0.19–0.41 (31%)attempts 9–8goals 1–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestBonino – Bjugstad – Sturm11:32
xG 1.04–0.20 (84%)attempts 12–9goals 1–0
- Zuccarello – Rask – Kaprizov10:35
xG 0.08–0.05 (60%)attempts 3–3goals 1–0
- Cramarossa – Greenway – Eriksson Ek10:15
xG 0.32–0.38 (45%)attempts 7–10goals 0–1
- Johansson – Hartman – Fiala11:19
xG 0.28–0.51 (36%)attempts 8–13goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Hunt9:59
xG 0.37–0.30 (56%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Suter – Spurgeon21:20
xG 0.59–0.52 (53%)attempts 20–19goals 1–1
- Brodin – Soucy17:15
xG 0.64–0.62 (51%)attempts 9–20goals 1–1
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it ANA. 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 63% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).