vs MTL (Oct 15, 2010)@ ATL (Oct 20, 2010) ›

October 16, 2010

United Center | Chicago

BUF 34 CHI

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs CHI all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
BUF2103
CHI1124
Shots on goal BUF 41, CHI 21W M. TurcoL P. Lalime
Summary

Buffalo had more shot attempts in all situations and lost 3-4.

IN NET
Buffalo P. Lalime .810
CHI M. Turco .927
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 0 of 6
CHI 1 of 4
TURNING POINT
P. Sharp, power play goal (P3 12:52), Sabres win chance drops from 47% to 10%
WIN DNA
2 of 4 winning traits
Game Leaders
C. McCormick
1 (1G)
POINTS
S. Montador
1.4
GAME SCORE
D. Roy
5
SHOTS
D. Roy
19:30
TOI (F)
T. Myers
24:04
TOI (D)
P. Lalime
.810 (17/21)
SAVE %

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFCHI

Shots on goal are counted from the play-by-play, which on a few games sits one shot off the box score line in the header and Team Stats.

Additional per-period stats
Each cell is BUF-CHI.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won9-154-128-1321-40
Hits9-1612-125-1026-38
Takeaways2-40-32-24-9
Giveaways1-22-52-55-12
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.997CHI 1.003. Shooting % plus save %. About 1.000 is neutral.

Game Flow

Running shot attempts for and against, all situations. Shading shows who led.

P3 20:00
+21+110-11-21shot attemptsBUFCHI

Dots are goals, navy for Buffalo.

How this is measured

Score-adjusted weights each attempt by how often teams take one in that score state, home or away, at that point of the game, league-wide (2016-17 to 2025-26): the share as if the game were tied at a neutral site. Score-tied counts only attempts while tied, and needs 15 tied minutes and 30 attempts.

Win Probability

Buffalo's chance of winning, from the score, the time left and the strength state.

Opened at 44%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFCHI
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P3 12:52P. Sharp (2), power play 47% to 10%-37
  2. P3 09:36D. Bolland (1) 84% to 47%-37
  3. P2 17:15C. McCormick (1) 46% to 75%+29
  4. P2 01:04M. Hossa (1) 68% to 45%-23

Dots are goals, diamonds penalties, squares a goalie pull; navy for Buffalo.

How this is measured

Each team is expected to score at the league rate for the season, tilted for home ice and scaled for the strength state. The chance Buffalo ends regulation ahead follows from the score and the time left, with a tie going to 3-on-3 overtime and a shootout. The opening value comes from both teams' goals for and against to that date, regressed toward the league average early in a season, plus home ice.

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

Replay
P3 19:44
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

2 of 4 winning traits showed up tonight. Win rates are over the full 2010–11 regular season (82 games).

Wins (43)Losses (39, 10 in overtime or a shootout)This game
3+ scorersD combined 3+ ptsScored firstDepth goal50%100%
Yes
3+ different scorers
Sabres win 73% when yes, 32% when no
No
Defensemen combined for 3+ points
Sabres win 70% when yes, 46% when no
No
Scored first
Sabres win 66% when yes, 40% when no
Yes
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 67% when yes, 38% when no

Shift Rhythm

BUFCHITypical game
Pinned time (5v5)1:301:22
Shot attempts against while pinned11
Short-rest shifts1414

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P22:27 to 2:520:2510
P25:41 to 5:570:16
D. Roy 1:24
00
P215:17 to 15:260:0900
P31:35 to 1:470:12
D. Roy 1:12
00
P33:39 to 4:000:2100

When Chicago was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P25:33 to 6:000:2700
P212:33 to 12:390:0600
P215:17 to 15:190:0200
P216:38 to 16:520:14
P. Kane 1:14
00
P31:35 to 1:450:1000
How this is measured

Pinned. A team is pinned when 3 or more of its skaters on the ice are past a minute of unbroken play, at 5v5. A hemmed-in shift is an even-strength shift in which the unit was on for more than 1:00 without a whistle to change on, and stayed at even strength for most of it. A stoppage inside a shift starts the clock over, however it began: what counts is the run of play they could not get off the ice for. Only the time past the minute counts: the first minute of those shifts plays like any other stretch of the game, while past it the play tilts hard toward the end the pinned team is defending. Pinned time is seconds on the clock, not each skater's seconds added up.

Short rest. An even-strength shift a skater started after less than 45 seconds on the bench, same period only (an intermission is a full rest).

Shots at an empty net are left out of every row. None of this says why a goal went in: a unit that cannot change is pinned and tiring at the same time, so these rows describe when the danger came, not what caused it.

Shift by shift

Shift length, in order, for one Buffalo skater this game.

28 shifts, averaging 0:52. 5 hemmed-in, 5 after a short rest, 0:03 pinned.

Replay
Shift 28
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:46P2avg 0:48P3avg 0:560:000:301:001:302:00151015202528Shift Number

Period averages are even strength only.

Line Combinations

Lines and pairs at 5v5, and how they did together.

What do TOI, CF, xG% etc. mean?
GP
Games in which this exact line/pair shared the ice together at 5v5.
TOI
Time on ice together at 5v5, meaning the whole line/pair on the ice at once, not any one player's own total. Only the seconds that exact pair or trio was the unit count, which is why a pair's TOI and xG% here differ slightly from the WOWY table, where together counts every 5v5 second the two share, whoever else is on the ice.
xGF / xGA
Expected goals for/against while this combo was on the ice, from this site's own xG model.
xG%
Share of on-ice expected goals this combo earned: xGF / (xGF + xGA). The single best read on who controlled play.
GF / GA
Actual goals for/against while this combo was on the ice together.
CF / CA (Corsi For / Against, Shot Attempts)
"Corsi" is just the hockey-analytics name for total shot attempts: shots on goal, missed shots, and blocked shots combined, a volume proxy for who had the puck more. CF is this combo's own attempts, CA is the opponent's.
CF%
Share of on-ice shot attempts (Corsi) this combo earned: CF / (CF + CA).
CF% Rel
This combo's CF% minus the team's own CF% in the minutes this exact combo was NOT on the ice. Positive means the combo lifted the team's play; negative means it dragged it down.
xGF% Rel
This combo's xG% minus the team's own xG% in the minutes this exact combo was NOT on the ice. Positive means the combo lifted the team's expected-goals share; negative means it dragged it down.
FF / FA
Unblocked shot attempts (also called Fenwick): shots on goal plus misses, excluding blocks. One layer closer to real scoring chances than CF/CA.
SF / SA
Shots on goal for/against while this combo was on the ice together.
Minimum Ice Time
Drag the slider on each table down to see combos with less shared ice time. Their percentages get noisier the lower you go, since a combo that barely played together can swing to 100% or 0% off a single shot.
STRENGTH
Forward Lines
LineGPTOIGFGACFCACF%CF% RelFFFASFSA
Roy–Vanek–Stafford110:111191340.9%-11.4%6944
Niedermayer–Grier–Ennis19:39019660.0%10.4%7664
Hecht–Connolly–McCormick19:1410101050.0%-0.7%7564
Gaustad–Kaleta–Gerbe16:20107463.6%13.9%6250
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIGFGACFCACF%CF% RelFFFASFSA
Leopold–Myers112:381291537.5%-15.6%71066
Rivet–Sekera112:1600141058.3%9.1%11864
Montador–Butler111:2620111150.0%-0.8%9694
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1P. SharpCHI | RW2G 0A 2P
2M. HossaCHI | RW1G 0A 1P
3D. StaffordBUF | RW1G 0A 1P

Box Score

ON-ICE RATES
Player
G
A
P
+/-
PIM
SOG
iGAx
On-Ice
Game Score
TOI
On-Ice TOIxGF%xGF% RelCF%CF% RelFF%GF%PDOxGSGS
#8 C. McCormick (C)
1
0
1
+1
0
2
11:4952.0%+2.0%62.5%100.0%1.125
1.2
12:05
#19 T. Connolly (C)
0
1
1
0
0
4
10:2752.4%+2.4%61.5%100.0%1.167
1.3
19:03
#21 D. Stafford (RW)
1
0
1
0
2
5
10:5439.1%-16.4%37.5%50.0%1.050
0.7
16:57
#26 T. Vanek (LW)
0
1
1
0
0
2
10:5340.9%-13.6%40.0%50.0%1.000
0.7
16:48
#28 P. Gaustad (C)
1
0
1
+1
0
1
7:3153.8%+3.8%66.7%100.0%1.200
1.1
13:57
#36 P. Kaleta (RW)
0
1
1
+1
0
0
7:5161.5%+13.1%70.0%100.0%1.200
1.0
8:01
#55 J. Hecht (C)
0
1
1
0
0
2
10:0650.0%-0.9%61.5%100.0%1.143
1.0
13:35
#4 S. Montador (D)
0
1
1
+2
0
3
12:5952.0%+2.0%61.1%100.0%1.200
1.4
14:14
#9 D. Roy (C)
0
0
0
0
0
5
11:5139.1%-16.4%40.0%50.0%1.000
0.3
19:30
#20 R. Niedermayer (C)
0
0
0
-1
2
0
11:2960.0%+12.6%55.6%0.0%0.833
-0.1
13:00
#25 M. Grier (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
10:2456.3%+7.1%53.8%0.0%0.750
0.2
14:20
#42 N. Gerbe (C)
0
0
0
+1
0
3
8:0364.3%+16.7%72.7%100.0%1.200
0.7
12:10
#63 T. Ennis (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
11:5352.6%+2.6%50.0%0.0%0.833
0.3
13:49
#3 J. Leopold (D)
0
0
0
-1
4
2
14:1540.0%-15.8%44.4%33.3%0.833
-0.5
21:23
#34 C. Butler (D)
0
0
0
+2
4
0
13:1053.8%+4.8%62.5%100.0%1.200
0.5
19:25
#44 A. Sekera (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
14:1257.7%+10.6%57.1%1.000
0.5
22:08
#52 C. Rivet (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
12:4158.3%+11.2%57.9%1.000
0.3
16:48
#57 T. Myers (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
14:3942.9%-12.2%44.4%33.3%0.810
0.0
24:04
Total
3
5
8
12
41
10.6

On-ice rates are 5-on-5. Rel compares to the team with that skater off the ice.

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#40 P. Lalime214.810-1.358:40L

Team Stats

BUFCHI
41Shots on Goal21
13.0%Shooting % (5v5)13.3%
.867Save % (5v5).870
0.997PDO (5v5)1.003
21 (34%)Faceoffs Won40 (66%)
6Power Play Chances4
0%PP%25%
75%PK%100%
0PPG1
12Penalty Minutes16
26Hits38
15Blocked Shots18
5Giveaways12
4Takeaways9

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
06:25GOAL (CHI): Patrick Sharp (1), assists: Patrick Kane
06:52GOAL (BUF): Drew Stafford (1), assists: Steve Montador, Thomas Vanek
07:07GOAL (BUF): Paul Gaustad (1), assists: Patrick Kaleta
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
01:04GOAL (CHI): Marian Hossa (1), assists: Brent Seabrook
17:15GOAL (BUF): Cody McCormick (1), assists: Jochen Hecht, Tim Connolly
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
09:36GOAL (CHI): Dave Bolland (1), assists: Brent Seabrook, Duncan Keith
12:52GOAL (CHI): Patrick Sharp (2), assists: Tomas Kopecky, Patrick Kane(PP)
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs MTL (Oct 15, 2010)@ ATL (Oct 20, 2010) ›