Tue, Jan 11, 2022·Honda Center, Anaheim
Pittsburgh Penguins 4, Anaheim Ducks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 81% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 116 | 213 | 15 | 434 |
| ANA | 07 | 111 | 08 | 126 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 1:05PITJeff CarterAssists: Marcus Pettersson · Slap, 0.12 xG1–0
- P2 3:23PITEvgeni MalkinPPGWGAssists: Kris Letang, Jake Guentzel · Slap, 0.07 xG2–0
- P2 8:33ANAJakob SilfverbergAssists: Sonny Milano · Wrist, 0.14 xG2–1
- P2 14:38PITEvgeni MalkinAssists: John Marino, Kasperi Kapanen · Tip-in, 0.10 xG3–1
- P3 17:03PITJeff CarterENAssists: Evgeni Malkin, Kasperi Kapanen · Wrist, 0.76 xG4–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 3:54ANARyan Getzlaf: Tripping2 min
- P1 19:40PITJohn Marino: Holding2 min
- P2 2:41ANAHampus Lindholm: Interference2 min · PPG
- P2 9:24ANAIsac Lundeström: High sticking2 min
- P3 1:25PITJeff Carter: Hooking2 min
- P3 6:35PITMike Matheson: 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 20:00Crosby 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestBlueger – Simon – Zohorna8:06
xG 0.60–0.12 (83%)attempts 12–4goals 0–0
- Carter – Malkin – Kapanen12:10
xG 0.71–0.45 (61%)attempts 15–10goals 1–1
- Crosby – Guentzel – Rodrigues14:16
xG 0.91–0.71 (56%)attempts 12–13goals 0–0
- Boyle – Angello – Bjorkqvist3:53
xG 0.11–0.16 (40%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMatheson – Ruhwedel13:08
xG 1.42–0.31 (82%)attempts 20–7goals 0–1
- Pettersson – Marino12:07
xG 0.81–0.27 (75%)attempts 19–6goals 2–0
- Letang – Dumoulin15:40
xG 0.57–0.79 (42%)attempts 12–16goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- Grant – Silfverberg – Lundeström11:49
xG 0.58–0.59 (50%)attempts 10–14goals 0–0
- Deslauriers – Robinson – Steel6:35
xG 0.18–0.22 (45%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
- Rakell – Comtois – Zegras11:31
xG 0.32–0.53 (38%)attempts 8–16goals 0–0
- Getzlaf – Milano – Terry11:17
xG 0.32–1.15 (22%)attempts 8–14goals 0–2
Defence pairs
- bestFowler – Manson15:34
xG 0.96–0.70 (58%)attempts 15–11goals 1–0
- Shattenkirk – Benoit11:21
xG 0.25–0.71 (26%)attempts 5–15goals 0–1
- Lindholm – Drysdale15:22
xG 0.30–1.13 (21%)attempts 9–22goals 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 PIT. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 81% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).