Tue, Apr 9, 2024·Honda Center, Anaheim
Los Angeles Kings 1, Anaheim Ducks 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 69% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAK | 18 | 016 | 013 | 137 |
| ANA | 18 | 010 | 29 | 327 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:50LAKAkil ThomasAssists: Trevor Lewis, Vladislav Gavrikov · Tip-in, 0.12 xG1–0
- P1 17:46ANAFrank VatranoAssists: Radko Gudas, Ryan Strome · Wrist, 0.24 xG1–1
- P3 1:51ANAAlex KillornGWGAssists: Cam Fowler, Ryan Strome · Snap, 0.06 xG1–2
- P3 5:50ANATrevor ZegrasUnassisted · Wrist, 0.06 xG1–3
Penalties (5)
- P2 9:25ANATroy Terry: Tripping2 min
- P2 19:44LAKTrevor Moore: Hooking2 min
- P3 2:23LAKAnze Kopitar: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P3 10:20LAKViktor Arvidsson: Interference2 min
- P3 16:21ANALukas Dostal: 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 20:00Danault won the faceoff against Zegras
- 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.
Los Angeles Kings
Forward lines
- bestLewis – Thomas – Lizotte8:31
xG 0.32–0.05 (86%)attempts 9–4goals 1–0
- Fiala – Dubois – Laferriere11:07
xG 0.37–0.16 (70%)attempts 8–6goals 0–1
- Kopitar – Kempe – Byfield8:31
xG 0.42–0.31 (57%)attempts 14–6goals 0–0
- Danault – Arvidsson – Moore11:21
xG 0.55–0.66 (45%)attempts 15–13goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestDoughty – Anderson16:40
xG 0.57–0.42 (58%)attempts 18–13goals 0–1
- Englund – Spence10:18
xG 0.15–0.07 (70%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Gavrikov – Roy15:38
xG 0.88–1.12 (44%)attempts 18–19goals 1–1
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- Strome – Vatrano – Zegras12:41
xG 0.71–0.69 (51%)attempts 11–20goals 2–0
- Silfverberg – Lundeström – Nesterenko7:32
xG 0.35–0.43 (45%)attempts 7–11goals 0–0
- Killorn – Terry – Carlsson10:31
xG 0.12–0.27 (31%)attempts 7–6goals 0–0
- Johnston – Leason – Meyers7:54
xG 0.05–0.40 (12%)attempts 3–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestGudas – LaCombe12:44
xG 1.00–0.40 (72%)attempts 14–13goals 1–0
- Gudas – Lindstrom2:10
xG 0.00–0.08 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 0–0
- Vaakanainen – Lindstrom14:05
xG 0.12–0.51 (20%)attempts 10–10goals 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 LAK. 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 69% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − LAK), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).