Fri, Jan 5, 2024·Honda Center, Anaheim
Winnipeg Jets 3, Anaheim Ducks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 72% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WPG | 010 | 110 | 27 | 327 |
| ANA | 113 | 09 | 016 | 138 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 15:51ANAMason McTavishAssists: Alex Killorn, Frank Vatrano · Backhand, 0.06 xG0–1
- P2 7:57WPGNikolaj EhlersAssists: Mark Scheifele, Neal Pionk · Snap, 0.08 xG1–1
- P3 1:57WPGNate SchmidtGWGAssists: Dylan Samberg, Vladislav Namestnikov · Wrist, 0.10 xG2–1
- P3 13:03WPGCole PerfettiPPAssists: Vladislav Namestnikov, Nino Niederreiter · Snap, 0.06 xG3–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 2:26WPGAdam Lowry: Tripping2 min
- P1 2:26ANAFrank Vatrano: Embellishment2 min
- P1 10:48WPGMason Appleton: High sticking2 min
- P3 11:13ANARadko Gudas: Holding2 min · PPG
- P3 16:42WPGMorgan Barron: Holding2 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 20:00Scheifele won the faceoff against Henrique
- 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.
Winnipeg Jets
Forward lines
- bestScheifele – Ehlers – Vilardi12:06
xG 0.83–0.16 (84%)attempts 20–7goals 1–1
- Toninato – Jonsson-Fjallby – Barron8:19
xG 0.41–0.06 (88%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
- Namestnikov – Iafallo – Perfetti8:07
xG 0.21–0.45 (31%)attempts 7–10goals 1–0
- Niederreiter – Lowry – Appleton11:54
xG 0.55–1.01 (35%)attempts 14–21goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchmidt – Samberg10:30
xG 0.66–0.41 (61%)attempts 10–11goals 1–0
- DeMelo – Morrissey18:56
xG 0.55–0.49 (53%)attempts 20–18goals 0–0
- Dillon – Pionk13:46
xG 0.76–0.90 (46%)attempts 20–16goals 1–1
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestHenrique – Groulx – Zegras6:05
xG 0.48–0.36 (57%)attempts 9–6goals 0–0
- Groulx – Zegras – McTavish2:15
xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Silfverberg – McGinn – Lundeström6:46
xG 0.10–0.04 (73%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Carrick – Johnston – Groulx3:28
xG 0.09–0.15 (37%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestFowler – Drysdale19:04
xG 1.34–0.88 (60%)attempts 31–20goals 0–1
- Lyubushkin – Mintyukov13:20
xG 0.24–0.27 (47%)attempts 6–11goals 0–0
- Gudas – Vaakanainen12:15
xG 0.32–0.73 (31%)attempts 12–17goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it WPG. 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 72% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − WPG), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).