Thu, Oct 8, 2026·Benchmark International Arena, Tampa
Minnesota Wild 2, Tampa Bay Lightning 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 65% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 09 | 212 | 015 | 236 |
| TBL | 214 | 110 | 011 | 335 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:26TBLAnthony CirelliAssists: Erik Cernak, Brandon Hagel · Tip-in, 0.06 xG0–1
- P1 6:02TBLJohn CarlsonAssists: Nikita Kucherov, Brayden Point · Wrist, 0.02 xG0–2
- P2 2:32MINQuinn HughesAssists: Bobby Brink, Jared Spurgeon · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–2
- P2 4:55TBLJohn CarlsonPPGWGAssists: Nikita Kucherov, Jake Guentzel · Slap, 0.11 xG1–3
- P2 14:01MINBlake ColemanPPAssists: Kirill Kaprizov, Quinn Hughes · Wrist, 0.05 xG2–3
Penalties (5)
- P1 12:34MINJonas Brodin: Interference2 min
- P2 4:02MINMichael McCarron: Holding2 min · PPG
- P2 8:11TBLMax Crozier: Hooking2 min
- P2 12:27TBLPontus Holmberg: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P2 14:52MINZach Bogosian: Holding2 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 20:00Girgensons 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestColeman – Eriksson Ek – Boldy5:08
xG 0.34–0.02 (95%)attempts 11–3goals 0–0
- McCarron – Trenin – Sturm4:13
xG 0.32–0.31 (51%)attempts 5–4goals 0–1
- Eriksson Ek – Kaprizov – Boldy9:32
xG 0.32–0.31 (51%)attempts 5–9goals 0–0
- Trenin – Brink – Yurov2:14
xG 0.05–0.07 (42%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSpurgeon – Hughes19:37
xG 1.39–0.89 (61%)attempts 29–21goals 1–0
- Brodin – Hughes3:50
xG 0.29–0.07 (80%)attempts 5–4goals 0–1
- Hunt – Spacek4:29
xG 0.00–0.12 (0%)attempts 0–7goals 0–1
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestHagel – Viel – Geekie2:49
xG 0.69–0.14 (84%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Guentzel – Cirelli – Hagel9:54
xG 0.60–0.32 (65%)attempts 14–7goals 1–0
- Kucherov – Point – Goncalves10:22
xG 0.81–0.62 (57%)attempts 20–12goals 1–0
- Girgensons – Holmberg – Mikheyev11:13
xG 0.37–0.49 (43%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHedman – Cernak3:41
xG 0.61–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–1goals 0–0
- Hedman – Crozier5:49
xG 0.65–0.47 (58%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0
- D'Astous – Crozier13:29
xG 0.61–0.46 (57%)attempts 14–12goals 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 MIN. 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 65% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).