@ PHI (Apr 14, 2011)vs PHI (Apr 18, 2011) ›

April 16, 2011

Wells Fargo Center | Philadelphia

BUF 45 PHI

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs PHI all-timeFull Round 1 series breakdown
1ST2ND3RDT
BUF3014
PHI3205
Shots on goal BUF 28, PHI 34W B. BoucherL R. Miller
Summary

PHI had more shot attempts in all situations and won 5-4.

IN NET
Buffalo R. Miller .853
PHI B. Boucher .952
PHI S. Bobrovsky .571
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 2 of 8
PHI 1 of 10
TURNING POINT
V. Leino, power play goal (P2 13:36), Sabres win chance drops from 43% to 20%
WIN DNA
2 of 4 winning traits
Game Leaders
T. Vanek
2 (2G)
POINTS
T. Vanek
1.4
GAME SCORE
T. Connolly
22:39
TOI (F)
C. Butler
27:08
TOI (D)
R. Miller
.853 (29/34)
SAVE %

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFPHI

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-PHI.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won16-1311-1310-737-33
Hits15-137-129-931-34
Takeaways3-12-22-17-4
Giveaways3-41-12-16-6
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.898PHI 1.102. 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 attemptsBUFPHI

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%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFPHI
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P2 13:36V. Leino (1), power play 43% to 20%-23
  2. P1 07:20D. Carcillo (1) 43% to 25%-18
  3. P1 04:00C. Giroux (1) 43% to 25%-18
  4. P1 09:43T. Vanek (2), power play 27% to 43%+16

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 sudden-death overtime. The opening value comes from both teams' regular-season goals for and against, plus home ice.

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

Replay
P3 19:57
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

BUFPHITypical game
Pinned time (5v5)0:120:25
Shot attempts against while pinned01
Short-rest shifts3743

When Philadelphia was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P21:00 to 1:250:25
D. Powe 1:25
10

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P21:00 to 1:120:1200
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.

39 shifts, averaging 0:42. 1 hemmed-in, 8 after a short rest, never pinned.

Replay
Shift 39
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:33P2avg 1:00P3avg 0:420:000:301:001:301510152025303539Shift 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–McCormick16:03116650.0%-1.2%5444
Connolly–Pominville–Vanek14:47006366.7%17.3%5242
Gaustad–Kaleta–Gerbe14:40012433.3%-19.0%1313
Boyes–Stafford–Ennis13:300040100.0%51.1%2020
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIGFGACFCACF%CF% RelFFFASFSA
Butler–Myers111:19017846.7%-5.2%3726
Sekera–Weber15:49124736.4%-16.6%4434
Montador–Gragnani15:36007463.6%14.2%3323
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1J. van RiemsdykPHI | LW1G 0A 1P
2C. GirouxPHI | RW1G 1A 2P
3T. VanekBUF | LW2G 0A 2P

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)
2
0
2
-2
0
3
7:0750.0%-4.5%46.7%0.0%0.750
1.4
16:48
#8 C. McCormick (C)
1
0
1
0
0
1
8:0453.3%+0.6%63.6%50.0%0.950
1.0
8:47
#19 T. Connolly (C)
0
1
1
0
0
3
7:5862.5%+13.9%63.6%1.000
1.1
22:39
#20 R. Niedermayer (C)
0
1
1
0
0
1
8:5146.7%-8.9%50.0%50.0%1.033
0.7
12:46
#21 D. Stafford (RW)
0
1
1
0
0
5
4:2371.4%+21.4%60.0%1.000
1.2
16:44
#25 M. Grier (RW)
0
1
1
0
0
1
7:1253.3%+0.6%58.3%50.0%1.000
0.7
13:39
#29 J. Pominville (RW)
0
1
1
-1
2
2
7:3953.3%+0.6%54.5%0.0%0.800
0.5
21:16
#36 P. Kaleta (RW)
0
1
1
-1
4
1
7:0340.0%-16.1%42.9%33.3%1.000
0.5
8:49
#17 M. Gragnani (D)
0
1
1
0
0
2
7:5153.3%+0.6%44.4%1.000
1.0
17:26
#44 A. Sekera (D)
1
0
1
-1
4
1
7:5443.8%-13.4%58.3%40.0%0.800
0.6
11:15
#22 B. Boyes (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
1
6:0570.0%+21.2%57.1%50.0%0.750
0.3
12:03
#28 P. Gaustad (C)
0
0
0
-2
7
0
8:0135.7%-23.7%22.2%0.0%0.667
-0.6
18:49
#42 N. Gerbe (C)
0
0
0
-1
4
0
5:3237.5%-18.3%20.0%0.0%0.750
-0.1
6:30
#63 T. Ennis (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
1
6:5766.7%+16.7%60.0%1.000
0.4
10:21
#4 S. Montador (D)
0
0
0
0
2
1
6:3466.7%+19.4%60.0%50.0%1.000
0.2
15:42
#6 M. Weber (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
9:0150.0%-4.5%60.0%50.0%0.917
0.2
17:58
#34 C. Butler (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
13:1660.0%+11.6%53.3%0.0%0.833
0.3
27:08
#57 T. Myers (D)
0
0
0
-1
4
1
12:3347.4%-8.9%35.7%0.0%0.875
-0.4
23:23
Total
4
7
11
27
28
9.1

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#30 R. Miller345.853-0.858:46L

Team Stats

BUFPHI
28Shots on Goal34
13.3%Shooting % (5v5)23.5%
.765Save % (5v5).867
0.898PDO (5v5)1.102
37 (53%)Faceoffs Won33 (47%)
8Power Play Chances10
25%PP%10%
90%PK%75%
2PPG1
29Penalty Minutes25
31Hits34
16Blocked Shots18
6Giveaways6
7Takeaways4

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
04:00GOAL (PHI): Claude Giroux (1), assists: Kimmo Timonen, Braydon Coburn
06:43GOAL (BUF): Thomas Vanek (1), assists: Marc-Andre Gragnani, Jason Pominville(PP)
07:20GOAL (PHI): Daniel Carcillo (1), assists: Kris Versteeg, Matt Carle
09:43GOAL (BUF): Thomas Vanek (2), assists: Drew Stafford, Tim Connolly(PP)
12:30GOAL (BUF): Andrej Sekera (1), assists: Patrick Kaleta
13:14GOAL (PHI): James van Riemsdyk (1), assists: Claude Giroux, Andrej Meszaros
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
13:36GOAL (PHI): Ville Leino (1), assists: Kimmo Timonen, Andrej Meszaros(PP)
15:27GOAL (PHI): Daniel Brière (1), assists: Scott Hartnell, Matt Carle
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
06:12GOAL (BUF): Cody McCormick (1), assists: Rob Niedermayer, Mike Grier
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
@ PHI (Apr 14, 2011)vs PHI (Apr 18, 2011) ›