Tue, Apr 14, 2026·Grand Casino Arena, St. Paul
Anaheim Ducks 2, Minnesota Wild 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 60% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA | 111 | 011 | 115 | 237 |
| MIN | 16 | 111 | 13 | 320 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 10:27ANAMason McTavishPPAssists: Jackson LaCombe, Ryan Poehling · Wrist, 0.06 xG1–0
- P1 16:42MINDanila YurovAssists: Vladimir Tarasenko · Wrist, 0.05 xG1–1
- P2 11:24MINHunter HaightAssists: Nick Foligno, Marcus Johansson · Wrist, 0.13 xG1–2
- P3 13:03MINRobby FabbriGWGAssists: Nicolas Aube-Kubel, Ben Jones · Wrist, 0.89 xG1–3
- P3 19:14ANAMason McTavishAssists: Mikael Granlund, Cutter Gauthier · Tip-in, 0.10 xG2–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 9:32MINHunter Haight: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P1 18:20ANABeckett Sennecke: Cross checking2 min
- P1 18:20MINJeff Petry: Roughing2 min
- P1 19:55MINJake Middleton: Tripping2 min
- P2 13:39ANALukas Dostal: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 7:50MINMichael McCarron: Interference2 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 20:00Granlund won the faceoff against Yurov
- 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 – Granlund – Sennecke12:46
xG 0.84–0.41 (67%)attempts 20–7goals 0–0
- Terry – McTavish – Carlsson3:27
xG 0.28–0.10 (73%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Terry – Viel – Carlsson6:57
xG 0.36–0.24 (60%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Poehling – McTavish – Gauthier5:32
xG 0.21–0.19 (53%)attempts 6–4goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Carlson – Mintyukov12:54
xG 0.35–0.45 (44%)attempts 10–9goals 0–1
- Helleson – Hinds12:06
xG 0.67–0.80 (46%)attempts 15–12goals 0–0
- Trouba – LaCombe11:20
xG 0.46–1.34 (26%)attempts 11–13goals 0–1
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestFabbri – Aube-Kubel – Jones8:13
xG 1.28–0.60 (68%)attempts 6–16goals 1–0
- Foligno – Johansson – Haight8:53
xG 0.48–0.11 (82%)attempts 9–4goals 1–0
- Tarasenko – Brink – Yurov12:45
xG 0.71–0.52 (57%)attempts 11–15goals 1–0
- McCarron – Trenin – Sturm8:54
xG 0.25–0.38 (40%)attempts 8–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestPetry – Middleton14:33
xG 1.64–0.58 (74%)attempts 13–11goals 1–0
- Kiersted – Gustafsson Nyberg13:41
xG 0.49–0.54 (47%)attempts 10–15goals 2–0
- Brodin – Hunt14:02
xG 0.57–0.67 (46%)attempts 13–16goals 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 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 60% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − ANA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).