Tue, Mar 28, 2023·Wells Fargo Center, Philadelphia
Montréal Canadiens 2, Philadelphia Flyers 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 78% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 014 | 19 | 16 | 229 |
| PHI | 08 | 111 | 28 | 327 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 3:41PHIMorgan FrostAssists: Kevin Hayes, Rasmus Ristolainen · Wrist, 0.07 xG0–1
- P2 9:39MTLBrendan GallagherUnassisted · Wrist, 0.10 xG1–1
- P3 17:45PHIMorgan FrostAssists: Cam York · Wrist, 0.13 xG1–2
- P3 18:14PHIOwen TippettENGWGUnassisted · Backhand, 0.80 xG1–3
- P3 19:37MTLRafael Harvey-PinardAssists: Jake Evans, Jesse Ylonen · Wrist, 0.14 xG2–3
Penalties (2)
- P2 1:39MTLDenis Gurianov: Tripping2 min
- P2 17:59MTLMike 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 20:00Suzuki won the faceoff against Cates
- 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.
Montréal Canadiens
Forward lines
- bestBelzile – Tierney – Pezzetta8:52
xG 0.40–0.25 (62%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- Gallagher – Evans – Ylonen8:58
xG 0.36–0.24 (59%)attempts 11–8goals 0–0
- Drouin – Gurianov – Farrell11:12
xG 0.25–0.36 (41%)attempts 5–11goals 0–0
- Hoffman – Suzuki – Harvey-Pinard12:34
xG 0.12–0.77 (14%)attempts 12–12goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestEdmundson – Barron15:27
xG 0.48–0.37 (56%)attempts 10–12goals 1–1
- Savard – Matheson17:19
xG 0.53–0.57 (48%)attempts 13–12goals 0–0
- Kovacevic – Harris14:35
xG 0.53–0.76 (41%)attempts 18–17goals 0–0
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestLemieux – Allison – Frost7:15
xG 0.40–0.19 (67%)attempts 10–3goals 0–0
- Tippett – Frost – Farabee5:40
xG 0.22–0.09 (72%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
- Tippett – Cates – Farabee6:43
xG 0.22–0.11 (67%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
- Laughton – Allison – Cates4:32
xG 0.04–0.05 (42%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRistolainen – Sanheim8:52
xG 0.39–0.09 (81%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Provorov – York8:40
xG 0.24–0.02 (94%)attempts 4–3goals 1–0
- Braun – Sanheim6:39
xG 0.34–0.25 (58%)attempts 4–7goals 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.
PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI is favoured, below it MTL. 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, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 78% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − MTL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).