Sat, Dec 6, 2025·Benchmark International Arena, Tampa
New York Islanders 2, Tampa Bay Lightning 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 77% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NYI | 04 | 08 | 27 | 219 |
| TBL | 09 | 012 | 011 | 032 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 12:46NYICalum RitchiePPGWGAssists: Anders Lee, Tony DeAngelo · Between legs, 0.06 xG1–0
- P3 19:58NYICasey CizikasENUnassisted · Backhand, 0.52 xG2–0
Penalties (4)
- P2 3:31TBLVictor Hedman: Tripping2 min
- P2 5:58NYIAnders Lee: High sticking2 min
- P2 11:07NYIBo Horvat: Hooking2 min
- P3 10:14TBLBrandon Hagel: High sticking double minor4 min · PPG
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 20:00Cirelli won the faceoff against Barzal
- 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.
New York Islanders
Forward lines
- Horvat – Heineman – Shabanov10:26
xG 0.23–0.19 (54%)attempts 9–15goals 0–0
- Cizikas – MacLean – Gatcomb7:31
xG 0.14–0.19 (42%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
- Lee – Barzal – Tsyplakov8:41
xG 0.13–0.28 (32%)attempts 7–9goals 0–0
- Duclair – Holmstrom – Ritchie9:07
xG 0.14–0.31 (31%)attempts 7–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Mayfield – Pelech3:23
xG 0.00–0.03 (0%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
- Pulock – Schaefer14:23
xG 0.34–0.54 (39%)attempts 16–15goals 0–0
- Mayfield – Boqvist9:46
xG 0.11–0.38 (23%)attempts 3–15goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestGuentzel – Cirelli – Hagel11:39
xG 0.64–0.15 (81%)attempts 17–3goals 0–0
- Gourde – Girgensons – Holmberg10:11
xG 0.44–0.13 (77%)attempts 11–8goals 0–0
- Douglas – Finley – Goncalves4:52
xG 0.32–0.05 (87%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Bjorkstrand – Paul – James7:32
xG 0.29–0.14 (68%)attempts 12–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestD'Astous – Lilleberg13:32
xG 0.42–0.03 (94%)attempts 15–7goals 0–0
- Hedman – Crozier13:56
xG 0.38–0.26 (59%)attempts 15–7goals 0–0
- Raddysh – Moser13:55
xG 0.42–0.32 (57%)attempts 16–14goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL is favoured, below it NYI. 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 77% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − NYI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).