Tue, Apr 26, 2022·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Columbus Blue Jackets 1, Tampa Bay Lightning 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBJ | 18 | 07 | 06 | 121 |
| TBL | 212 | 111 | 19 | 432 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 1:37TBLNikita KucherovAssists: Steven Stamkos, Nick Paul · Wrist, 0.06 xG0–1
- P1 2:59CBJOliver BjorkstrandPPAssists: Jack Roslovic, Zach Werenski · Snap, 0.09 xG1–1
- P1 16:47TBLSteven StamkosPPGWGAssists: Nikita Kucherov, Victor Hedman · Slap, 0.12 xG1–2
- P2 7:29TBLSteven StamkosAssists: Nikita Kucherov · Wrist, 0.07 xG1–3
- P3 14:53TBLOndrej PalatAssists: Nikita Kucherov, Steven Stamkos · Snap, 0.15 xG1–4
Penalties (5)
- P1 2:13TBLZach Bogosian: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P1 10:27TBLSteven Stamkos: Hooking2 min
- P1 15:46CBJVladislav Gavrikov: Holding2 min · PPG
- P2 4:58TBLNikita Kucherov: Slashing2 min
- P3 0:53CBJCole Sillinger: 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 20:00Hagel won the faceoff against Roslovic
- 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.
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forward lines
- bestVoracek – Nyquist – Roslovic13:28
xG 0.90–0.25 (78%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- Bjorkstrand – Chinakhov – Sillinger12:46
xG 0.37–0.27 (58%)attempts 14–10goals 0–0
- Gaunce – Meyer – Johnson9:30
xG 0.09–0.36 (20%)attempts 8–8goals 0–0
- Danforth – Bemstrom – Robinson8:38
xG 0.35–0.87 (29%)attempts 11–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestKukan – Bean10:33
xG 0.32–0.15 (68%)attempts 10–5goals 0–0
- Werenski – Peeke5:36
xG 0.25–0.11 (70%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Peeke – Bean2:19
xG 0.10–0.02 (82%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestStamkos – Palat – Kucherov12:44
xG 1.22–0.30 (80%)attempts 17–10goals 2–0
- Killorn – Cirelli – Hagel9:53
xG 0.49–0.15 (77%)attempts 8–8goals 0–0
- Paul – Point – Colton12:01
xG 0.29–0.46 (39%)attempts 12–15goals 0–0
- Perry – Maroon – Bellemare9:17
xG 0.00–0.27 (0%)attempts 0–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMcDonagh – Foote7:25
xG 0.59–0.07 (90%)attempts 8–8goals 0–0
- Bogosian – Hedman4:11
xG 0.15–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Hedman – Foote6:50
xG 0.62–0.48 (56%)attempts 9–10goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it CBJ. 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − CBJ), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).