Thu, Mar 20, 2025·Bridgestone Arena, Nashville
Anaheim Ducks 4, Nashville Predators 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 77% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 010 | 313 | 112 | 435 |
| NSH | 111 | 08 | 015 | 134 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:07NSHSteven StamkosPPAssists: Filip Forsberg, Jonathan Marchessault · Slap, 0.09 xG0–1
- P2 7:29ANAJackson LaCombeAssists: Mason McTavish, Brett Leason · Wrist, 0.18 xG1–1
- P2 13:19ANATroy TerryGWGAssists: Trevor Zegras, Pavel Mintyukov · Wrist, 0.09 xG2–1
- P2 15:36ANATrevor ZegrasAssists: Drew Helleson, Mason McTavish · Bat, 0.21 xG3–1
- P3 19:24ANAAlex KillornENAssists: Ryan Strome · Wrist, 0.64 xG4–1
Penalties (6)
- P1 6:18ANAIsac Lundeström: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P1 19:05ANAMason McTavish: Holding the stick2 min
- P2 18:00NSHLuke Evangelista: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P2 0:00NSHFedor Svechkov: Roughing2 min
- P2 0:00ANARyan Strome: Roughing2 min
- P3 10:08NSHSteven Stamkos: Hooking2 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 20:00Strome won the faceoff against McCarron
- 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.
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestKillorn – Gauthier – Carlsson11:34
xG 0.54–0.02 (97%)attempts 17–10goals 0–0
- Leason – Zegras – McTavish11:48
xG 0.98–0.57 (63%)attempts 18–13goals 1–0
- Strome – Vatrano – Terry10:14
xG 0.36–0.12 (75%)attempts 13–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestTrouba – Zellweger13:43
xG 0.80–0.28 (74%)attempts 19–13goals 1–0
- Helleson – Mintyukov9:59
xG 0.83–0.38 (69%)attempts 14–12goals 1–0
- Gudas – LaCombe12:19
xG 0.53–0.26 (67%)attempts 15–13goals 1–0
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- O'Reilly – Forsberg – Vrana2:31
xG 0.10–0.12 (45%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Stamkos – Marchessault – Bunting2:32
xG 0.00–0.03 (0%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- McCarron – Smith – Evangelista2:10
xG 0.06–0.11 (37%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Vrana – Evangelista – Svechkov3:39
xG 0.09–0.19 (33%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Oesterle – Stastney4:06
xG 0.08–0.13 (38%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- Del Gaizo – Barron4:49
xG 0.00–0.10 (0%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Skjei – Blankenburg14:56
xG 0.53–0.76 (41%)attempts 24–21goals 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.
NSH's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line NSH 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, Anaheim Ducks win this game 77% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NSH − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).