Sat, Nov 12, 2022·Honda Center, Anaheim
Chicago Blackhawks 3, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 55% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 15 | 111 | 16 | 322 |
| ANA | 219 | 013 | 09 | 241 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 0:19ANATroy TerryAssists: Trevor Zegras · Snap, 0.18 xG0–1
- P1 11:13ANAAdam HenriqueAssists: Troy Terry, Simon Benoit · Snap, 0.07 xG0–2
- P1 13:55CHIJarred TinordiAssists: Max Domi, Patrick Kane · Backhand, 0.11 xG1–2
- P2 4:04CHIFilip RoosAssists: Patrick Kane, Max Domi · Wrist, 0.17 xG2–2
- P3 17:18CHIJarred TinordiGWGUnassisted · Slap, 0.06 xG3–2
Penalties (6)
- P1 19:49ANAPavol Regenda: Hooking2 min
- P2 14:00CHIBoris Katchouk: High sticking double minor4 min
- P3 16:56ANAPavol Regenda: Roughing2 min
- P3 16:56ANARyan Strome: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 16:56CHIJonathan Toews: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 16:56CHITaylor Raddysh: Roughing2 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 20:00Domi won the faceoff against Zegras
- 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.
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- bestKane – Domi – Kurashev15:10
xG 1.23–1.12 (52%)attempts 15–22goals 3–2
- Blackwell – Khaira – Johnson9:10
xG 0.16–0.15 (51%)attempts 6–10goals 0–0
- Lafferty – Katchouk – Entwistle9:18
xG 0.26–0.53 (33%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Toews – Athanasiou – Raddysh12:34
xG 0.25–1.06 (19%)attempts 5–17goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMcCabe – Roos11:24
xG 1.07–0.47 (69%)attempts 12–12goals 1–0
- Tinordi – Murphy18:34
xG 0.54–0.67 (45%)attempts 9–16goals 2–1
- Johnson – McCabe4:11
xG 0.16–0.40 (28%)attempts 3–7goals 0–1
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestHenrique – Terry – Zegras14:05
xG 1.05–0.68 (61%)attempts 18–11goals 1–2
- Silfverberg – Comtois – Lundeström10:31
xG 0.44–0.12 (78%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
- Strome – Vatrano – Regenda11:08
xG 0.95–0.78 (55%)attempts 15–10goals 0–1
- Gawdin – Leason – McTavish5:05
xG 0.00–0.16 (2%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWhite – Strand9:15
xG 0.56–0.25 (69%)attempts 10–5goals 0–0
- Klingberg – Benoit14:57
xG 0.83–0.57 (60%)attempts 22–11goals 1–1
- Fowler – Klingberg2:01
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 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 CHI. 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 55% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).