vs MTL (Nov 5, 2010)@ NJD (Nov 10, 2010) ›

November 6, 2010

Air Canada Centre | Toronto

BUF 32 TOR

FINAL / SO

Head-to-Head vs TOR all-time
1ST2ND3RDOTSOT
BUF011013
TOR110002
Shots on goal BUF 31, TOR 25W J. EnrothL J. Giguere
Summary

Buffalo had more shot attempts in all situations and won 3-2 in a shootout.

IN NET
Buffalo J. Enroth .920
TOR J. Giguere .935
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 0 of 3
TOR 0 of 2
TURNING POINT
J. Hecht, power play goal (P3 19:46), Sabres win chance rises from 1% to 48%
WIN DNA
0 of 4 winning traits
Game Leaders
D. Roy
2 (1G-1A)
POINTS
D. Roy
1.7
GAME SCORE
D. Roy
21:28
TOI (F)
J. Leopold
26:35
TOI (D)
J. Enroth
.920 (23/25)
SAVE %

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFTOR

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-TOR.
 1ST2ND3RDOTTotal
Faceoffs Won10-1010-124-83-227-32
Hits11-123-78-80-222-29
Takeaways3-42-32-22-19-10
Giveaways3-44-32-92-111-17
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.921TOR 1.079. Shooting % plus save %. About 1.000 is neutral.

Game Flow

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

OT 4:49
+14+70-7-14shot attemptsBUFTOR

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 43%.

OT 5:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFTOR
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P3 19:46J. Hecht (1), power play 1% to 48%+47
  2. P2 15:41N. Kulemin (1) 20% to 6%-14
  3. P2 18:46D. Roy (1) 5% to 19%+14
  4. P2 03:10Fighting on Mike Komisarek, 5 min 17% to 23%+6

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
OT 4:49
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

0 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%
No
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
No
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 67% when yes, 38% when no

Shift Rhythm

BUFTORTypical game
Pinned time (5v5)1:051:04
Shot attempts against while pinned11
Short-rest shifts2724

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P11:32 to 1:530:2100
P15:24 to 5:250:01
D. Roy 1:01
00
P210:34 to 10:540:2010
P211:54 to 12:010:0700
P215:02 to 15:060:0400

When Toronto was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P15:24 to 5:260:0200
P19:53 to 10:030:1000
P114:29 to 14:310:0200
P211:54 to 12:020:0810
P213:02 to 13:080:0600
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.

33 shifts, averaging 0:46. 2 hemmed-in, 3 after a short rest, never pinned.

Replay
Shift 33
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:40P2avg 0:41P3avg 0:53OTavg 0:350:000:301:001:302:002:3015101520253033Shift 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
Niedermayer–Grier–Gaustad111:440011664.7%10.9%6443
Hecht–Pominville–Ennis15:53005741.7%-13.7%5642
Hecht–Connolly–Pominville14:540010566.7%13.0%6231
Roy–Kaleta–Ennis14:37115935.7%-20.2%4632
Roy–Ellis–Vanek13:13004357.1%2.6%2303
Connolly–McCormick–Kaleta12:52007277.8%24.2%6250
McCormick–Ellis–Vanek12:25003260.0%5.5%2111
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIGFGACFCACF%CF% RelFFFASFSA
Leopold–Montador117:0711122136.4%-21.5%91487
Morrisonn–Myers110:1001101441.7%-14.6%71266
Rivet–Sekera18:410013668.4%15.1%6543
Sekera–Myers15:160010283.3%30.4%9130
Pageof 1

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
#9 D. Roy (C)
1
1
2
+1
0
4
13:5544.1%-15.3%40.7%50.0%1.024
1.7
21:28
#36 P. Kaleta (RW)
0
1
1
0
0
2
9:4448.3%-8.7%50.0%50.0%0.911
0.7
9:47
#55 J. Hecht (C)
1
0
1
+1
0
3
14:0150.0%-6.6%52.4%1.000
1.0
18:54
#3 J. Leopold (D)
0
1
1
0
0
0
19:3347.7%-11.6%50.0%50.0%0.957
0.7
26:35
#4 S. Montador (D)
0
1
1
+1
7
1
19:5541.0%-21.3%46.2%50.0%0.957
0.3
23:48
#8 C. McCormick (C)
0
0
0
0
0
2
7:5055.6%+1.1%57.1%1.000
0.3
8:02
#19 T. Connolly (C)
0
0
0
0
0
5
11:2260.0%+7.4%63.2%0.0%0.750
0.6
17:51
#20 R. Niedermayer (C)
0
0
0
0
0
3
14:0672.0%+22.6%73.3%1.000
0.8
17:50
#25 M. Grier (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
17:0056.5%+2.4%50.0%0.0%0.800
0.1
19:33
#26 T. Vanek (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
2
9:1259.1%+5.6%55.6%1.000
0.5
13:29
#28 P. Gaustad (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
13:5563.6%+11.3%57.1%0.0%0.800
0.4
15:43
#29 J. Pominville (RW)
0
0
0
+1
0
4
12:4651.6%-4.2%54.5%1.000
0.4
18:57
#37 M. Ellis (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
0
8:2760.0%+6.6%53.8%1.000
0.3
8:58
#63 T. Ennis (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
0
15:1547.4%-11.2%51.7%50.0%0.850
-0.1
18:37
#27 S. Morrisonn (D)
0
0
0
-1
2
0
13:4344.8%-13.4%39.1%0.0%0.857
-0.4
16:08
#44 A. Sekera (D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
16:0374.4%+30.9%76.0%1.000
1.1
21:10
#52 C. Rivet (D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
12:2163.0%+11.1%52.9%1.000
0.4
14:13
#57 T. Myers (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
16:2957.9%+5.0%58.1%0.0%0.833
0.4
25:31
Total
2
4
6
9
31
9.0

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#1 J. Enroth252.9200.864:26W

Team Stats

BUFTOR
31Shots on Goal25
3.8%Shooting % (5v5)11.8%
.882Save % (5v5).962
0.921PDO (5v5)1.079
27 (46%)Faceoffs Won32 (54%)
3Power Play Chances2
0%PP%0%
100%PK%100%
0PPG0
9Penalty Minutes11
22Hits29
15Blocked Shots23
11Giveaways17
9Takeaways10

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
19:43GOAL (TOR): Mikhail Grabovski (1), assists: Tomas Kaberle
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
15:41GOAL (TOR): Nikolay Kulemin (1), assists: Mikhail Grabovski, Clarke MacArthur
18:46GOAL (BUF): Derek Roy (1), assists: Jordan Leopold, Patrick Kaleta
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
19:46GOAL (BUF): Jochen Hecht (1), assists: Derek Roy, Steve Montador(PP)
20:00Period end
OT
00:00Period start
05:00Period end
SO
00:00Period start
00:00GOAL (BUF): Thomas Vanek, unassisted(SO)
00:00GOAL (TOR): John Mitchell, unassisted(SO)
00:00GOAL (BUF): Tyler Ennis, unassisted(SO)
00:00Shootout complete
00:00Period end
00:00Game end
vs MTL (Nov 5, 2010)@ NJD (Nov 10, 2010) ›