Sat, Jan 27, 2024·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Anaheim Ducks 3, Minnesota Wild 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 113 | 04 | 28 | 325 |
| MIN | 212 | 017 | 08 | 237 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:39MINKirill KaprizovAssists: Mats Zuccarello, Jonas Brodin · Wrist, 0.05 xG0–1
- P1 8:17ANATroy TerryAssists: Frank Vatrano, Bo Groulx · Wrist, 0.12 xG1–1
- P1 18:37MINJon MerrillAssists: Mats Zuccarello, Dakota Mermis · Tip-in, 0.07 xG1–2
- P3 6:45ANARyan StromeAssists: Radko Gudas, Adam Henrique · Tip-in, 0.08 xG2–2
- P3 11:40ANATroy TerryGWGAssists: Adam Henrique, Urho Vaakanainen · Wrist, 0.09 xG3–2
Penalties (6)
- P1 1:57ANATroy Terry: Hooking2 min
- P1 11:17MINJake Lucchini: Holding2 min
- P2 6:20ANAMason McTavish: High sticking2 min
- P2 9:39ANAAdam Henrique: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:31MINJonas Brodin: High sticking2 min
- P3 9:29ANATroy Terry: 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 20:00Carlsson won the faceoff against Eriksson Ek
- 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. Shift data for this game is incomplete, so treat these as rough.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestVatrano – Terry – Groulx9:42
xG 0.62–0.11 (84%)attempts 9–10goals 1–0
- Carrick – Johnston – Leason4:56
xG 0.09–0.03 (76%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
- Silfverberg – Lundeström – McTavish10:24
xG 0.11–0.15 (41%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
- Henrique – Strome – Carlsson11:36
xG 0.18–0.43 (30%)attempts 8–12goals 1–2
Defence pairs
- bestGudas – LaCombe15:27
xG 0.49–0.21 (71%)attempts 10–18goals 1–0
- Vaakanainen – Lindstrom10:08
xG 0.10–0.12 (44%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
- Fowler – Zellweger14:04
xG 0.38–0.59 (39%)attempts 12–13goals 1–1
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestZuccarello – Kaprizov – Rossi11:29
xG 0.37–0.21 (64%)attempts 9–7goals 2–0
- Johansson – Eriksson Ek – Boldy8:28
xG 0.19–0.14 (57%)attempts 7–6goals 0–1
- Hartman – Gaudreau – Duhaime3:37
xG 0.01–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBogosian – Brodin13:02
xG 0.34–0.20 (62%)attempts 14–8goals 0–0
- Merrill – Mermis6:43
xG 0.14–0.04 (75%)attempts 6–3goals 1–0
- Brodin – Faber4:38
xG 0.13–0.04 (75%)attempts 4–2goals 1–0
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it ANA. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).