Thu, Jan 30, 2025·Centre Bell, Montreal
Minnesota Wild 4, Montréal Canadiens 0
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 74% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 08 | 28 | 211 | 427 |
| MTL | 03 | 05 | 011 | 019 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 3:41MINLiam OhgrenGWGAssists: Frederick Gaudreau, Yakov Trenin · Snap, 0.17 xG1–0
- P2 5:47MINMarco RossiAssists: Marcus Foligno, Ryan Hartman · Snap, 0.14 xG2–0
- P3 5:56MINDevin ShoreAssists: Marco Rossi · Snap, 0.17 xG3–0
- P3 18:33MINFrederick GaudreauENAssists: Yakov Trenin, Jared Spurgeon · Snap, 0.58 xG4–0
Penalties (2)
- P1 16:09MTLKirby Dach: Tripping2 min
- P3 9:15MINJoel Eriksson Ek: Boarding2 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 20:00Suzuki 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestZuccarello – Eriksson Ek – Boldy12:42
xG 0.50–0.12 (80%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
- Shore – Lauko – Khusnutdinov9:37
xG 0.49–0.39 (56%)attempts 9–11goals 1–0
- Gaudreau – Trenin – Ohgren8:09
xG 0.43–0.43 (50%)attempts 8–8goals 1–0
- Foligno – Hartman – Rossi11:00
xG 0.23–0.75 (24%)attempts 9–19goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestBogosian – Merrill13:29
xG 0.75–0.33 (69%)attempts 16–11goals 1–0
- Spurgeon – Chisholm15:41
xG 0.66–0.72 (48%)attempts 16–18goals 1–0
- Middleton – Faber16:54
xG 0.19–0.67 (22%)attempts 9–17goals 0–0
Montréal Canadiens
Forward lines
- bestGallagher – Anderson – Dvorak9:32
xG 0.89–0.33 (73%)attempts 24–6goals 0–0
- Laine – Dach – Newhook10:20
xG 0.20–0.21 (49%)attempts 7–7goals 0–0
- Armia – Evans – Harvey-Pinard7:04
xG 0.02–0.18 (11%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
- Suzuki – Caufield – Slafkovský13:38
xG 0.24–0.49 (33%)attempts 8–13goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestXhekaj – Hutson13:11
xG 0.62–0.36 (63%)attempts 20–10goals 0–1
- Savard – Struble11:32
xG 0.86–0.63 (58%)attempts 15–14goals 0–1
- Matheson – Carrier15:36
xG 0.24–0.81 (23%)attempts 8–18goals 0–1
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.
MTL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MTL is favoured, below it MIN. 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 74% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MTL − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).