Sat, Jan 8, 2022·Wells Fargo Center, Philadelphia
San Jose Sharks 3, Philadelphia Flyers 2 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 60% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 013 | 013 | 220 | 11 | 347 |
| PHI | 015 | 010 | 25 | 01 | 231 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 1:06PHIJames van RiemsdykAssists: Oskar Lindblom, Kevin Hayes · Snap, 0.09 xG0–1
- P3 6:47PHIJames van RiemsdykPPAssists: Cam York, Cam Atkinson · Deflected, 0.15 xG0–2
- P3 7:47SJSTomas HertlAssists: Timo Meier, Brent Burns · Tip-in, 0.13 xG1–2
- P3 14:29SJSTomas HertlAssists: Timo Meier, Brent Burns · Backhand, 0.14 xG2–2
- OT 0:24SJSTomas HertlGWGAssists: Brent Burns · Wrist, 0.21 xG3–2
Penalties (4)
- P1 6:08PHIJoel Farabee: Tripping2 min
- P2 14:01SJSJaycob Megna: Interference2 min
- P3 5:56SJSJeffrey Viel: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P3 11:54PHIGerry Mayhew: Slashing2 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 20:00Laughton won the faceoff against Hertl
- 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.
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestHertl – Meier – Barabanov16:51
xG 1.21–0.72 (63%)attempts 23–13goals 2–0
- Merkley – Dahlen – Gregor3:06
xG 0.21–0.00 (99%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
- Dahlen – Gregor – Reedy7:07
xG 0.18–0.07 (73%)attempts 7–9goals 0–0
- Cogliano – Nieto – Weatherby10:06
xG 0.13–0.24 (36%)attempts 7–10goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestVlasic – Meloche12:10
xG 0.37–0.23 (62%)attempts 13–10goals 0–1
- Burns – Ferraro22:24
xG 1.13–1.02 (52%)attempts 25–20goals 2–0
- Megna – Merkley12:10
xG 0.45–0.49 (48%)attempts 14–15goals 0–0
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestAtkinson – Laughton – Farabee14:06
xG 0.94–0.71 (57%)attempts 14–14goals 0–2
- van Riemsdyk – Hayes – Lindblom4:36
xG 0.23–0.10 (70%)attempts 7–4goals 1–0
- Brown – MacEwen – Cates8:44
xG 0.50–0.40 (56%)attempts 13–11goals 0–0
- Willman – Mayhew – Frost3:18
xG 0.00–0.02 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Braun – York19:38
xG 0.91–0.93 (49%)attempts 17–18goals 0–1
- Yandle – Connauton11:27
xG 0.62–0.70 (47%)attempts 12–19goals 0–0
- Seeler – Ristolainen19:45
xG 0.39–0.61 (39%)attempts 21–20goals 1–0
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.
PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI is favoured, below it SJS. 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 60% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).