Wed, Apr 6, 2022·Honda Center, Anaheim
Calgary Flames 4, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Calgary Flames win this game 65% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGY | 110 | 17 | 211 | 428 |
| ANA | 013 | 15 | 110 | 228 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 12:33CGYElias LindholmAssists: Johnny Gaudreau, Michael Stone · Slap, 0.16 xG1–0
- P2 10:11CGYTyler ToffoliAssists: Andrew Mangiapane, Mikael Backlund · Backhand, 0.22 xG2–0
- P2 18:11ANATrevor ZegrasAssists: Vinni Lettieri, Sam Steel · Wrist, 0.06 xG2–1
- P3 10:28CGYMichael StoneGWGAssists: Andrew Mangiapane · Slap, 0.05 xG3–1
- P3 11:53ANAAdam HenriquePPAssists: Kevin Shattenkirk, Cam Fowler · Wrist, 0.07 xG3–2
- P3 19:25CGYMatthew TkachukENAssists: Johnny Gaudreau · Wrist, 0.78 xG4–2
Penalties (5)
- P2 11:33ANAAnthony Stolarz: Tripping2 min
- P2 15:54CGYNikita Zadorov: Hooking2 min
- P3 5:35CGYChris Tanev: High sticking2 min
- P3 11:05CGYMatthew Tkachuk: Too many men on the ice2 min · PPG
- P3 0:00ANAVinni Lettieri: 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 20:00Lindholm won the faceoff against Henrique
- 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.
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestGaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk14:24
xG 1.15–0.71 (62%)attempts 16–13goals 1–0
- Lewis – Lucic – Carpenter10:25
xG 0.54–0.18 (75%)attempts 19–4goals 0–0
- Coleman – Dube – Ruzicka8:08
xG 0.76–0.54 (58%)attempts 11–8goals 0–0
- Backlund – Toffoli – Mangiapane10:13
xG 0.37–0.69 (35%)attempts 10–9goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestHanifin – Andersson19:09
xG 1.42–0.60 (70%)attempts 19–16goals 1–0
- Gudbranson – Zadorov12:10
xG 0.73–0.65 (53%)attempts 14–10goals 1–0
- Stone – Tanev15:58
xG 0.77–0.79 (50%)attempts 22–11goals 1–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestHenrique – Simon – Aston-Reese8:50
xG 0.96–0.07 (93%)attempts 12–4goals 0–0
- Steel – Lettieri – Comtois7:48
xG 0.35–0.42 (45%)attempts 6–10goals 0–0
- Grant – Terry – Zegras11:31
xG 0.53–0.63 (46%)attempts 10–12goals 0–1
- Carrick – Milano – Lundeström8:16
xG 0.32–0.57 (36%)attempts 9–6goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestFowler – Drysdale17:07
xG 0.89–0.59 (60%)attempts 15–15goals 0–1
- Vaakanainen – Drysdale2:09
xG 0.04–0.12 (25%)attempts 1–5goals 0–0
- Sustr – Benoit10:15
xG 0.25–0.39 (39%)attempts 7–8goals 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 CGY. 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, Calgary Flames win this game 65% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − CGY), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).