Fri, May 7, 2021·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Anaheim Ducks 3, Minnesota Wild 4 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 72% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 110 | 17 | 18 | 00 | 325 |
| MIN | 210 | 012 | 112 | 12 | 436 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:11ANAMaxime ComtoisAssists: Trevor Zegras · Snap, 0.21 xG1–0
- P1 8:06MINVictor RaskAssists: Kirill Kaprizov, Mats Zuccarello · Snap, 0.23 xG1–1
- P1 18:26MINNico SturmAssists: Nick Bonino, Nick Bjugstad · Snap, 0.15 xG1–2
- P2 6:40ANAAdam HenriqueUnassisted · Wrist, 0.21 xG2–2
- P3 12:01MINJoel Eriksson EkAssists: Marcus Foligno · Wrist, 0.26 xG2–3
- P3 14:14ANADerek GrantAssists: Adam Henrique, Alexander Volkov · Wrist, 0.06 xG3–3
- OT 0:17MINKirill KaprizovGWGAssists: Joel Eriksson Ek, Jared Spurgeon · Wrist, 0.45 xG3–4
Penalties (4)
- P2 16:51ANAJosh Manson: Hooking2 min
- P3 3:25ANADerek Grant: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 6:19MINJoel Eriksson Ek: Tripping2 min
- P3 18:00ANAJosh Manson: High sticking2 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 20:00Zegras 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestHenrique – Grant – Volkov10:37
xG 0.63–0.55 (54%)attempts 15–11goals 2–1
- Rakell – Heinen – Steel10:24
xG 0.84–1.12 (43%)attempts 9–13goals 0–1
- Terry – Comtois – Zegras12:02
xG 0.29–0.58 (34%)attempts 6–9goals 1–1
- Carrick – Jones – Lundeström9:37
xG 0.17–0.95 (15%)attempts 5–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Fowler – Manson15:51
xG 0.71–0.82 (46%)attempts 14–12goals 1–0
- Shattenkirk – Fleury2:30
xG 0.02–0.16 (11%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
- Fleury – Drysdale13:37
xG 0.80–1.33 (38%)attempts 9–19goals 0–2
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestFoligno – Greenway – Eriksson Ek12:34
xG 0.90–0.30 (75%)attempts 13–8goals 1–1
- Zuccarello – Hartman – Kaprizov11:50
xG 1.41–0.88 (62%)attempts 15–9goals 0–0
- Bonino – Bjugstad – Sturm8:57
xG 0.39–0.38 (51%)attempts 8–12goals 1–1
- Johansson – Rask – Fiala12:01
xG 0.31–0.45 (41%)attempts 8–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Spurgeon17:46
xG 1.34–0.50 (73%)attempts 19–12goals 0–0
- Cole – Soucy13:52
xG 0.85–0.13 (87%)attempts 11–8goals 2–0
- Brodin – Dumba16:08
xG 0.53–1.32 (29%)attempts 10–19goals 0–3
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 72% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).