Game Recap
The Edmonton Oilers couldn't find the back of the net as the Florida Panthers cruised to a 4-0 win on March 19, 2026. High-danger chances at 5-on-5: FLA 11, EDM 9. The underlying numbers told a different story — EDM actually held the xG edge (2.88 to 2.31) at 5-on-5, but it didn't matter on the scoreboard. Shots on goal: EDM 21, FLA 23.
← Back to Games

- xG Gameflow — cumulative expected goals chart tracking each team's xG as Florida Panthers vs Edmonton Oilers progressed on Mar 19, 2026
- Shot heatmap — where shots were taken on the ice, color-coded by scoring probability
- Event timeline — every goal, penalty, and key play mapped chronologically
- Player matchup grid — head-to-head on-ice performance in Corsi and expected goals
- Strength filter — 5v5 by default, with options for power play, penalty kill, and all situations
FLA4 - 0EDM
Mar 19, 2026 · Regular Season
Overview
| Period | Corsi | Fenwick | Shots | SC | HDSC | xG | Goals | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | ||
| EDM | P1 | 12 | 29 | 29.3 | 11 | 20 | 35.5 | 8 | 12 | 40.0 | 4 | 21 | 16.0 | 1 | 10 | 9.1 | 0.84 | 1.46 | 36.5 | 0 | 2 | 0.0 |
| P2 | 20 | 15 | 57.1 | 12 | 10 | 54.5 | 9 | 5 | 64.3 | 18 | 12 | 60.0 | 8 | 2 | 80.0 | 1.20 | 0.59 | 66.9 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | |
| P3 | 14 | 12 | 53.8 | 12 | 10 | 54.5 | 4 | 6 | 40.0 | 7 | 8 | 46.7 | 1 | 1 | 50.0 | 1.02 | 0.64 | 61.6 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | |
| Total | 46 | 56 | 45.1 | 35 | 40 | 46.7 | 21 | 23 | 47.7 | 29 | 41 | 41.4 | 10 | 13 | 43.5 | 3.06 | 2.69 | 53.2 | 0 | 4 | 0.0 | |
| FLA | P1 | 29 | 12 | 70.7 | 20 | 11 | 64.5 | 12 | 8 | 60.0 | 21 | 4 | 84.0 | 10 | 1 | 90.9 | 1.46 | 0.84 | 63.5 | 2 | 0 | 100.0 |
| P2 | 15 | 20 | 42.9 | 10 | 12 | 45.5 | 5 | 9 | 35.7 | 12 | 18 | 40.0 | 2 | 8 | 20.0 | 0.59 | 1.20 | 33.1 | 1 | 0 | 100.0 | |
| P3 | 12 | 14 | 46.2 | 10 | 12 | 45.5 | 6 | 4 | 60.0 | 8 | 7 | 53.3 | 1 | 1 | 50.0 | 0.64 | 1.02 | 38.4 | 1 | 0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 56 | 46 | 54.9 | 40 | 35 | 53.3 | 23 | 21 | 52.3 | 41 | 29 | 58.6 | 13 | 10 | 56.5 | 2.69 | 3.06 | 46.8 | 4 | 0 | 100.0 | |
Win Probability
EDM Favored
FLA Favored
Goal
Power Play
Gameflow — Cumulative xG
EDM
FLA
Goal
Shot Density Heatmap
FLA Attempts
EDM Attempts
Individual Event Map
FLA ShootEDM Shoot
Goal
Shot on Net
Missed Shot
Hit
Hit Taken
Shot Blocked
Takeaway
Player Matchup Grid
This grid shows how every skater on the home team (EDM) performed against every skater on the away team (FLA) when they were on the ice at the same time.
- Rows = EDM players, Columns = FLA players. Forwards are listed first, then defensemen.
- Green = the EDM player had a favorable matchup (above 50%). Red = unfavorable (below 50%).
- Values shown from the home team's perspective. Toggle between CF% (shot attempt share) and xGF% (expected goal share).
- Cells with fewer than 3 shared events are grayed out (insufficient sample). Hover over any cell for full details.
| EDM ↓ / FLA → | Bennett | Verhaeghe | Lundell | Rodrigues | Luostarinen | Boqvist | Kunin | Tkachuk | Greer | Reinhardt | Nosek | Samoskevich | Jones | Forsling | Mikkola | Ekblad | Kulikov | Benning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Savoie | 53 | 50 | 40 | 17 | 60 | 67 | 67 | 47 | 20 | 50 | 67 | 0 | 38 | 73 | 25 | 64 | 43 | 38 |
| McDavid | 56 | 53 | 60 | 33 | 67 | 80 | 67 | 53 | 40 | 50 | 67 | 0 | 50 | 75 | 29 | 67 | 50 | 60 |
| Nugent-Hopkins | 0 | 0 | 40 | 25 | 80 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 75 | 89 | 60 | 71 | 40 | 43 | 0 | 0 |
| Dickinson | 40 | 100 | 0 | 27 | — | — | 44 | 33 | 0 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 0 | 67 | 33 | 36 |
| Roslovic | 33 | 29 | 100 | 25 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 22 | 80 | 0 | — | 0 | 100 | 50 | 60 | 43 | 17 | 20 |
| Henrique | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Frederic | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 50 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Samanski | 0 | — | 0 | 33 | — | — | 33 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 29 | 29 |
| Hyman | 0 | 0 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 50 | 0 | 89 | 33 | 86 | 80 | 82 | 71 | 50 | 43 | 25 | 25 |
| Jones | 40 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | 67 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| Podkolzin | 56 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 86 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 43 | 50 | 0 | 58 | 80 | 33 | 70 | 38 | 38 |
| Kapanen | 25 | 0 | 33 | 45 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 14 | 79 | 50 | 67 | 67 | 85 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 33 | 40 |
| Bouchard | 64 | 75 | 44 | 50 | 63 | 80 | 80 | 57 | 78 | 80 | 89 | 86 | 69 | 84 | 43 | 69 | 71 | 63 |
| Murphy | 13 | 22 | 8 | 21 | 100 | 20 | 14 | 13 | 67 | 13 | 0 | 40 | 13 | 44 | 11 | 43 | 17 | 17 |
| Nurse | 17 | 22 | 10 | 22 | 100 | 20 | 14 | 23 | 67 | 14 | 0 | 67 | 15 | 44 | 14 | 50 | 20 | 17 |
| Ekholm | 71 | 69 | 67 | 100 | 75 | 100 | 71 | 60 | 90 | 71 | 89 | 100 | 92 | 88 | 67 | 73 | 67 | 60 |
| Walman | 10 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 60 | 25 | 0 | 23 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 23 | — | 17 | 0 | 7 | 9 |
| Stastney | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
