Sat, Oct 12, 2024·Little Caesars Arena, Detroit
Nashville Predators 0, Detroit Red Wings 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 53% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSH | 016 | 012 | 014 | 042 |
| DET | 08 | 110 | 24 | 322 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 1:02DETJ.T. CompherGWGAssists: Ben Chiarot, Moritz Seider · Tip-in, 0.13 xG0–1
- P3 6:35DETAndrew CoppAssists: Lucas Raymond, Simon Edvinsson · Deflected, 0.22 xG0–2
- P3 19:40DETDylan LarkinENUnassisted · Wrist, 0.66 xG0–3
Penalties (5)
- P1 1:40DETBen Chiarot: Hooking2 min
- P1 10:43NSHSteven Stamkos: Slashing2 min
- P2 10:31NSHJeremy Lauzon: Interference2 min
- P2 14:25DETDylan Larkin: High sticking2 min
- P2 19:01DETMoritz Seider: 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 20:00McCarron won the faceoff against Copp
- 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.
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestNyquist – O'Reilly – Forsberg10:51
xG 1.22–0.28 (81%)attempts 22–6goals 0–1
- Stamkos – Marchessault – Jankowski2:28
xG 0.31–0.05 (86%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Stamkos – Marchessault – Sissons4:43
xG 0.20–0.16 (56%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Sissons – McCarron – Smith2:59
xG 0.00–0.03 (3%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestJosi – Fabbro10:58
xG 0.88–0.27 (76%)attempts 21–8goals 0–0
- Josi – Skjei4:09
xG 0.24–0.00 (100%)attempts 12–1goals 0–0
- Lauzon – Carrier6:35
xG 0.37–0.17 (69%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
Detroit Red Wings
Forward lines
- bestMotte – Veleno – Berggren5:58
xG 0.66–0.37 (64%)attempts 7–11goals 0–0
- Copp – Rasmussen – Raymond2:02
xG 0.22–0.02 (93%)attempts 2–1goals 1–0
- Tarasenko – Compher – Raymond5:49
xG 0.34–0.27 (56%)attempts 6–6goals 1–0
- Copp – Fischer – Rasmussen2:46
xG 0.00–0.02 (0%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHoll – Edvinsson13:46
xG 0.70–0.44 (61%)attempts 12–14goals 1–0
- Maatta – Johansson10:35
xG 0.48–0.25 (66%)attempts 7–15goals 0–0
- Chiarot – Seider15:51
xG 0.32–1.35 (19%)attempts 8–26goals 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.
DET's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line DET is favoured, below it NSH. 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, Nashville Predators win this game 53% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (DET − NSH), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).