Sat, Dec 2, 2023·Mullett Arena, Tempe
St. Louis Blues 1, Arizona Coyotes 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Arizona Coyotes win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STL | 03 | 015 | 114 | 132 |
| ARI | 39 | 07 | 16 | 422 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 0:40ARIMichael CarconeAssists: Alexander Kerfoot · Wrist, 0.10 xG0–1
- P1 15:49ARINick SchmaltzPPGWGAssists: Alexander Kerfoot, Clayton Keller · Wrist, 0.20 xG0–2
- P1 19:22ARIMatias MaccelliAssists: Lawson Crouse, Michael Kesselring · Snap, 0.09 xG0–3
- P3 9:35STLBrandon SaadAssists: Oskar Sundqvist, Nick Leddy · Backhand, 0.13 xG1–3
- P3 18:45ARIAlexander KerfootENAssists: Lawson Crouse · Wrist, 0.37 xG1–4
Penalties (7)
- P1 10:59STLTorey Krug: High sticking2 min
- P1 12:52ARINick Bjugstad: Hooking2 min
- P1 15:02STLSammy Blais: Roughing2 min · PPG
- P2 4:46ARIJuuso Välimäki: Interference2 min
- P2 13:26ARIJason Zucker: Interference bench2 min
- P2 14:16STLPavel Buchnevich: Roughing2 min
- P2 14:16ARIJoshua Brown: 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 20:00Bjugstad won the faceoff against Hayes
- 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.
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestSaad – Sundqvist – Kapanen9:25
xG 0.59–0.41 (59%)attempts 13–11goals 1–0
- Blais – Toropchenko – Alexandrov6:04
xG 0.09–0.12 (42%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Schenn – Hayes – Kyrou12:47
xG 0.32–0.47 (41%)attempts 12–8goals 0–0
- Buchnevich – Thomas – Neighbours10:18
xG 0.39–0.61 (39%)attempts 13–10goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Faulk – Krug16:35
xG 0.83–0.80 (51%)attempts 21–14goals 0–2
- Leddy – Parayko16:07
xG 0.37–0.50 (43%)attempts 17–11goals 1–0
- Scandella – Perunovich10:04
xG 0.46–0.59 (44%)attempts 13–9goals 0–0
Arizona Coyotes
Forward lines
- bestBjugstad – Crouse – Maccelli10:01
xG 0.93–0.32 (75%)attempts 14–10goals 1–1
- Bjugstad – O'Brien – Kelemen3:21
xG 0.04–0.07 (33%)attempts 1–5goals 0–0
- Kerfoot – O'Brien – Kelemen2:18
xG 0.00–0.07 (0%)attempts 0–1goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Cooley10:54
xG 0.25–0.33 (42%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestStecher – Kesselring8:56
xG 0.54–0.28 (66%)attempts 9–10goals 1–0
- Dumba – Brown2:22
xG 0.26–0.07 (79%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
- Durzi – Moser11:16
xG 0.40–0.24 (62%)attempts 9–9goals 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.
ARI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ARI is favoured, below it STL. 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, Arizona Coyotes win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ARI − STL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).