Fri, Mar 14, 2025·Honda Center, Anaheim
Nashville Predators 1, Anaheim Ducks 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 64% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSH | 08 | 011 | 110 | 129 |
| ANA | 05 | 16 | 14 | 215 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 15:52ANATroy TerryAssists: Frank Vatrano · Snap, 0.10 xG0–1
- P3 4:25NSHJakub VranaPPAssists: Brady Skjei, Ryan O'Reilly · Slap, 0.04 xG1–1
- P3 11:20ANAAlex KillornGWGAssists: Trevor Zegras, Leo Carlsson · Wrist, 0.18 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 5:15NSHColton Sissons: Holding2 min
- P1 16:07NSHFilip Forsberg: Slashing2 min
- P3 2:41ANAAlex Killorn: Interference2 min · PPG
- P3 6:03ANARadko Gudas: Tripping2 min
- P3 6:54ANABrett Leason: High sticking2 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 McTavish
- 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
- bestMarchessault – Sissons – Bunting3:59
xG 0.51–0.10 (84%)attempts 8–3goals 0–1
- McCarron – Bellows – Smith8:58
xG 0.43–0.21 (68%)attempts 11–7goals 0–0
- Vrana – Bunting – Svechkov4:48
xG 0.33–0.18 (65%)attempts 7–5goals 0–0
- Stamkos – O'Reilly – Forsberg4:15
xG 0.04–0.08 (33%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSkjei – Blankenburg16:07
xG 1.03–0.51 (67%)attempts 23–12goals 0–1
- Oesterle – Barron12:50
xG 0.44–0.17 (72%)attempts 14–4goals 0–1
- Stastney – Del Gaizo12:30
xG 0.44–0.39 (53%)attempts 10–15goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestNesterenko – McTavish – Gauthier9:11
xG 0.32–0.14 (69%)attempts 12–6goals 0–0
- Harkins – Lundeström – Leason8:52
xG 0.08–0.12 (42%)attempts 3–9goals 0–0
- Killorn – Zegras – Carlsson8:24
xG 0.39–0.44 (47%)attempts 5–11goals 1–0
- Strome – Vatrano – Terry12:56
xG 0.33–0.89 (27%)attempts 14–18goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHelleson – Mintyukov12:48
xG 0.57–0.49 (54%)attempts 11–15goals 2–0
- Gudas – LaCombe15:25
xG 0.35–0.59 (37%)attempts 11–19goals 0–0
- Trouba – Zellweger15:04
xG 0.42–0.76 (36%)attempts 13–14goals 0–0
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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA 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 64% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − NSH), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).