vs LAK (Nov 19, 2010)vs PIT (Nov 24, 2010) ›

November 20, 2010

HSBC Arena | Buffalo

TBL 21 BUF

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs TBL all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
TBL1102
BUF1001
Shots on goal TBL 22, BUF 30W M. SmithL P. Lalime
Summary

Buffalo had more shot attempts in all situations and lost 1-2.

IN NET
Buffalo P. Lalime .909
TBL M. Smith .967
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 0 of 2
TBL 0 of 3
TURNING POINT
A. Hall goal (P2 11:26), Sabres win chance drops from 51% to 26%
WIN DNA
1 of 4 winning traits
Game Leaders
T. Vanek
1 (1G)
POINTS
J. Hecht
1.0
GAME SCORE
D. Roy
21:03
TOI (F)
J. Leopold
23:51
TOI (D)
P. Lalime
.909 (20/22)
SAVE %

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFTBL

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-TBL.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won17-89-610-636-20
Hits6-57-59-022-10
Takeaways0-11-11-02-2
Giveaways2-26-43-511-11
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.988TBL 1.012. 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
+15+80-8-15shot attemptsBUFTBL

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 51%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFTBL
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P2 11:26A. Hall (1) 51% to 26%-25
  2. P1 18:10T. Purcell (1) 72% to 51%-21
  3. P1 04:52T. Vanek (1) 51% to 70%+19
  4. P2 19:24Holding the stick on Dominic Moore, 2 min 22% to 26%+4

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 19:51
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

1 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
Yes
Scored first
Sabres win 66% when yes, 40% when no
No
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 67% when yes, 38% when no

Shift Rhythm

BUFTBLTypical game
Pinned time (5v5)0:530:40
Shot attempts against while pinned12
Short-rest shifts1322

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P26:07 to 6:220:1500
P212:26 to 12:340:0810
P34:57 to 5:190:2200
P318:47 to 18:550:08
D. Roy 1:08
00

When Tampa Bay was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P16:37 to 6:460:0900
P113:44 to 13:480:04
A. Hall 1:04
00
P212:26 to 12:300:0400
P34:55 to 5:180:23
A. Hall 1:41
20
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.

29 shifts, averaging 0:49. 6 hemmed-in, 3 after a short rest, never pinned.

Replay
Shift 29
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:50P2avg 0:47P3avg 0:540:000:301:001:302:00151015202529Shift 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
Hecht–Connolly–Pominville110:270013476.5%32.9%112102
Roy–Vanek–Ennis110:23104833.3%-15.9%3323
Niedermayer–Grier–McCormick17:40001614.3%-35.3%1513
Gaustad–Kaleta–Gerbe17:08003442.9%-5.1%2221
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIGFGACFCACF%CF% RelFFFASFSA
Leopold–Montador116:5910161650.0%2.9%148136
Sekera–Myers112:290012666.7%21.9%7574
Rivet–Morrisonn112:060041028.6%-21.4%4725
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1M. SmithTBL | G1.00 GAA, .967 SV%
2T. VanekBUF | LW1G 0A 1P
3A. HallTBL | 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
#26 T. Vanek (LW)
1
0
1
0
2
4
14:4530.8%-27.4%33.3%50.0%1.100
0.4
19:19
#8 C. McCormick (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
9:3818.2%-35.3%22.2%1.000
-0.1
10:48
#9 D. Roy (C)
0
0
0
0
0
2
14:3444.4%-5.6%47.1%50.0%1.032
0.1
21:03
#19 T. Connolly (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
4
11:5571.4%+33.9%81.3%1.000
0.8
18:45
#20 R. Niedermayer (C)
0
0
0
0
0
1
9:3025.0%-29.7%23.1%1.000
-0.3
10:54
#25 M. Grier (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
2
8:3233.3%-16.7%37.5%1.000
0.0
12:25
#28 P. Gaustad (C)
0
0
0
0
6
1
12:1340.0%-10.0%45.5%1.000
-0.3
13:40
#29 J. Pominville (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
3
13:3570.4%+37.0%71.4%1.000
0.8
18:16
#36 P. Kaleta (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
1
10:2140.0%-9.2%50.0%1.000
0.1
10:21
#42 N. Gerbe (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
8:1533.3%-16.7%33.3%0.0%0.667
-0.1
9:03
#55 J. Hecht (C)
0
0
0
0
0
4
12:0381.8%+49.9%87.5%1.000
1.0
16:46
#63 T. Ennis (RW)
0
0
0
+1
0
0
14:0337.5%-13.4%62.5%100.0%1.333
0.0
14:51
#3 J. Leopold (D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
19:0645.7%-4.3%58.3%50.0%0.952
0.0
23:51
#4 S. Montador (D)
0
0
0
+1
0
1
18:2850.0%+4.1%63.6%100.0%1.077
0.3
22:04
#27 S. Morrisonn (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
12:1228.6%-24.2%36.4%1.000
-0.2
13:00
#44 A. Sekera (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
14:5165.0%+24.2%57.1%1.000
0.4
21:05
#52 C. Rivet (D)
0
0
0
-2
0
2
13:4025.0%-29.7%30.8%0.0%0.857
-0.4
14:30
#57 T. Myers (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
14:0763.2%+21.2%58.3%1.000
0.4
21:57
Total
1
0
1
8
30
2.8

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#40 P. Lalime222.9090.559:22L

Team Stats

TBLBUF
22Shots on Goal30
5.6%Shooting % (5v5)4.3%
.957Save % (5v5).944
1.012PDO (5v5)0.988
20 (36%)Faceoffs Won36 (64%)
3Power Play Chances2
0%PP%0%
100%PK%100%
0PPG0
6Penalty Minutes8
10Hits22
11Blocked Shots14
11Giveaways11
2Takeaways2

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
04:52GOAL (BUF): Thomas Vanek (1), unassisted
18:10GOAL (TBL): Teddy Purcell (1), assists: Randy Jones, Pavel Kubina
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
11:26GOAL (TBL): Adam Hall (1), unassisted
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs LAK (Nov 19, 2010)vs PIT (Nov 24, 2010) ›