Mon, Dec 5, 2022·Scotiabank Saddledome, Calgary
Arizona Coyotes 2, Calgary Flames 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Calgary Flames win this game 62% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARI | 07 | 16 | 17 | 220 |
| CGY | 28 | 015 | 14 | 327 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 14:13CGYDillon DubeAssists: Chris Tanev, Nazem Kadri · Tip-in, 0.09 xG0–1
- P1 17:01CGYElias LindholmPPAssists: Nazem Kadri, Jonathan Huberdeau · Wrist, 0.13 xG0–2
- P2 13:53ARIShayne GostisbehereAssists: Matias Maccelli, Jakob Chychrun · Wrist, 0.01 xG1–2
- P3 5:50ARIJakob ChychrunAssists: Clayton Keller, Shayne Gostisbehere · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–2
- P3 15:42CGYNazem KadriPPGWGAssists: Tyler Toffoli, Jonathan Huberdeau · Snap, 0.12 xG2–3
Penalties (5)
- P1 2:34CGYNoah Hanifin: Interference2 min
- P1 4:43CGYJonathan Huberdeau: Hooking2 min
- P1 15:55ARIJack McBain: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P3 15:00ARIJakob Chychrun: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P3 19:22ARINick Schmaltz: Hooking2 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 Bjugstad
- 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.
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestBjugstad – Crouse – Maccelli13:25
xG 0.49–0.22 (69%)attempts 9–7goals 1–0
- O'Brien – Hayton – Guenther2:37
xG 0.24–0.08 (76%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Keller – Hayton – Guenther4:26
xG 0.23–0.13 (63%)attempts 3–4goals 1–0
- O'Brien – Fischer – McBain8:04
xG 0.14–0.14 (50%)attempts 3–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Brown – Moser8:22
xG 0.15–0.13 (53%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
- Välimäki – Moser5:41
xG 0.01–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Nemeth – Stecher12:15
xG 0.17–0.25 (41%)attempts 4–14goals 0–0
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestBacklund – Coleman – Ruzicka11:51
xG 0.23–0.12 (65%)attempts 10–4goals 0–1
- Kadri – Mangiapane – Dube12:29
xG 0.88–0.83 (51%)attempts 12–11goals 1–0
- Lewis – Lucic – Rooney7:42
xG 0.00–0.03 (0%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
- Toffoli – Huberdeau – Lindholm11:49
xG 0.19–0.36 (34%)attempts 8–6goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestHanifin – Andersson16:36
xG 0.75–0.55 (58%)attempts 9–16goals 0–1
- Tanev – Weegar15:45
xG 0.44–0.48 (48%)attempts 14–8goals 1–1
- Stone – Zadorov10:45
xG 0.17–0.26 (40%)attempts 9–4goals 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.
CGY's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CGY is favoured, below it ARI. 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 62% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (CGY − ARI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).