Sun, Nov 9, 2025·Grand Casino Arena, St. Paul
Calgary Flames 0, Minnesota Wild 2
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 52% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGY | 011 | 012 | 013 | 036 |
| MIN | 08 | 17 | 14 | 219 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 13:47MINMatt BoldyGWGAssists: Marcus Johansson, Joel Eriksson Ek · Wrist, 0.10 xG0–1
- P3 19:10MINKirill KaprizovENAssists: Joel Eriksson Ek, Matt Boldy · Wrist, 0.78 xG0–2
Penalties (7)
- P2 5:23CGYMatt Coronato: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P2 8:13MINJonas Brodin: Hooking2 min
- P2 8:17CGYMatt Coronato: High sticking2 min
- P2 16:03CGYAdam Klapka: Hooking2 min
- P3 9:48MINYakov Trenin: Tripping2 min
- P3 13:33MINKirill Kaprizov: Tripping2 min
- P3 15:00CGYMacKenzie Weegar: 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 20:00Frost 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.
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestHuberdeau – Frost – Coronato11:37
xG 0.90–0.31 (74%)attempts 22–6goals 0–0
- Backlund – Coleman – Honzek8:48
xG 0.32–0.02 (95%)attempts 15–3goals 0–0
- Kadri – Farabee – Sharangovich9:05
xG 0.61–0.32 (65%)attempts 11–8goals 0–1
- Lomberg – Zary – Klapka7:02
xG 0.31–0.42 (42%)attempts 10–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestPachal – Kuznetsov8:28
xG 0.65–0.25 (72%)attempts 18–6goals 0–0
- Andersson – Bahl14:03
xG 0.66–0.39 (63%)attempts 12–9goals 0–0
- Weegar – Hanley16:26
xG 0.75–0.62 (55%)attempts 23–14goals 0–1
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestFoligno – Trenin – Yurov8:24
xG 0.42–0.28 (60%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Johansson – Eriksson Ek – Boldy9:03
xG 0.26–0.25 (50%)attempts 8–11goals 1–0
- Zuccarello – Kaprizov – Rossi9:54
xG 0.50–0.54 (48%)attempts 9–15goals 0–0
- Tarasenko – Hinostroza – Hartman8:35
xG 0.08–0.64 (11%)attempts 4–15goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Spurgeon – Brodin15:50
xG 0.40–0.52 (44%)attempts 10–17goals 1–0
- Hunt – Faber2:36
xG 0.00–0.12 (0%)attempts 0–8goals 0–0
- Hunt – Jiricek7:19
xG 0.30–0.50 (37%)attempts 6–15goals 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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it CGY. 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 52% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − CGY), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).