Thu, Jan 4, 2024·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Tampa Bay Lightning 4, Minnesota Wild 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 89% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 07 | 213 | 210 | 430 |
| MIN | 06 | 09 | 18 | 123 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 4:31TBLDarren RaddyshAssists: Luke Glendening · Backhand, 0.10 xG1–0
- P2 7:00TBLDarren RaddyshGWGAssists: Conor Sheary, Tyler Motte · Wrap-around, 0.27 xG2–0
- P3 2:00TBLVictor HedmanPPAssists: Nikita Kucherov, Nick Paul · Slap, 0.15 xG3–0
- P3 15:35MINZach BogosianAssists: Alex Goligoski, Ryan Hartman · Snap, 0.05 xG3–1
- P3 19:19TBLBrandon HagelENUnassisted · Wrist, 0.77 xG4–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 7:39TBLBrandon Hagel: Holding2 min
- P1 11:02MINFrederick Gaudreau: Hooking2 min
- P1 18:14MINDakota Mermis: High sticking2 min
- P2 8:25MINPatrick Maroon: Fighting5 min
- P2 8:25TBLAustin Watson: Fighting5 min
- P3 0:48MINNic Petan: Hooking2 min · PPG
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 20:00Gaudreau won the faceoff against Paul
- 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.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestMotte – Sheary – Eyssimont9:07
xG 0.74–0.19 (79%)attempts 14–9goals 1–0
- Kucherov – Point – Hagel12:43
xG 0.64–0.32 (67%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Stamkos – Paul – Cirelli11:33
xG 0.52–0.22 (70%)attempts 10–9goals 0–0
- Watson – Glendening – Jeannot7:15
xG 0.21–0.06 (78%)attempts 5–3goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestde Haan – Raddysh15:18
xG 0.54–0.07 (88%)attempts 17–4goals 1–1
- Perbix – Carlile8:41
xG 0.53–0.12 (82%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
- Hedman – Myers6:27
xG 0.38–0.09 (81%)attempts 8–5goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestJohansson – Eriksson Ek – Boldy11:21
xG 0.34–0.23 (59%)attempts 11–6goals 0–0
- Walker – Dewar – Lucchini6:35
xG 0.03–0.15 (15%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
- Hartman – Petan – Rossi10:56
xG 0.45–0.63 (41%)attempts 15–8goals 1–1
- Maroon – Gaudreau – Duhaime10:09
xG 0.23–0.77 (23%)attempts 8–15goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestMiddleton – Faber13:40
xG 0.46–0.32 (59%)attempts 16–9goals 0–0
- Merrill – Mermis13:25
xG 0.38–0.89 (30%)attempts 10–11goals 0–1
- Goligoski – Bogosian14:22
xG 0.16–0.80 (17%)attempts 9–18goals 1–1
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it TBL. 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 89% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).