vs TBL (Oct 25, 2011)vs FLA (Oct 29, 2011) ›

October 27, 2011

First Niagara Center | Buffalo

CBJ 24 BUF

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs CBJ all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
CBJ0112
BUF1124
Shots on goal CBJ 43, BUF 26W J. EnrothL S. Mason
Summary

CBJ had more shot attempts in all situations, but Buffalo won 4-2.

IN NET
Buffalo J. Enroth .953
CBJ S. Mason .846
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 2 of 3
CBJ 0 of 6
TURNING POINT
P. Kaleta goal (P3 14:08), Sabres win chance rises from 53% to 92%
WIN DNA
3 of 4 winning traits
Game Leaders
J. Pominville
3 (2G-1A)
POINTS
T. Vanek
2.3
GAME SCORE
T. Vanek
3
SHOTS
J. Pominville
18:01
TOI (F)
C. Ehrhoff
25:13
TOI (D)
J. Enroth
.953 (41/43)
SAVE %

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFCBJ

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-CBJ.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won19-1213-1312-1344-38
Hits6-34-34-414-10
Takeaways3-32-11-16-5
Giveaways3-32-22-07-5
PDO (5v5): BUF 1.039CBJ 0.961. 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
+30+150-15-30shot attemptsBUFCBJ

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 59%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFCBJ
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P3 14:08P. Kaleta (1) 53% to 92%+39
  2. P3 10:51F. Tyutin (1) 89% to 54%-35
  3. P1 14:07B. Boyes (1), power play 60% to 77%+17
  4. P2 04:51J. Pominville (1) 79% to 92%+13

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 19:53
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

3 of 4 winning traits showed up tonight. Win rates are over the full 2011–12 regular season (82 games).

Wins (39)Losses (43, 11 in overtime or a shootout)This game
3+ scorersD combined 3+ ptsScored firstDepth goal50%100%
Yes
3+ different scorers
Sabres win 74% when yes, 29% when no
No
Defensemen combined for 3+ points
Sabres win 65% when yes, 43% when no
Yes
Scored first
Sabres win 60% when yes, 36% when no
Yes
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 67% when yes, 35% when no

Shift Rhythm

BUFCBJTypical game
Pinned time (5v5)0:170:00
Shot attempts against while pinned00
Short-rest shifts2842

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P23:04 to 3:120:08
D. Roy 1:08
00
P210:40 to 10:430:03
L. Adam 1:03
00
P314:02 to 14:080:0600
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.

34 shifts, averaging 0:45. 3 hemmed-in, 4 after a short rest, 0:03 pinned.

Replay
Shift 34
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:32P2avg 0:41P3avg 0:500:000:301:001:3015101520253034Shift 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
Pominville–Vanek–Adam19:45116940.0%0.5%6857
Roy–Stafford–Leino19:040171236.8%-3.1%51039
Gaustad–Kaleta–Gerbe18:461051229.4%-11.3%5555
Boyes–McCormick–Ellis15:48009564.3%27.1%6342
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIGFGACFCACF%CF% RelFFFASFSA
Ehrhoff–Sekera114:3410111837.9%-1.9%814611
Leopold–Gragnani112:030191047.4%8.9%8947
Regehr–Myers111:460091242.9%3.9%7665
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1J. PominvilleBUF | RW2G 1A 3P
2J. EnrothBUF | G2.00 GAA, .953 SV%
3P. KaletaBUF | 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)
0
3
3
0
0
3
13:1145.5%+8.2%47.6%50.0%1.032
2.3
17:54
#29 J. Pominville (RW)
2
1
3
0
0
3
10:0441.2%+2.1%43.8%50.0%1.042
2.1
18:01
#22 B. Boyes (RW)
1
1
2
0
0
1
10:2052.4%+17.4%50.0%1.000
1.5
12:16
#36 P. Kaleta (RW)
1
0
1
+1
9
1
9:1029.4%-12.8%50.0%100.0%1.200
0.5
13:33
#42 N. Gerbe (C)
0
1
1
+1
0
3
12:4826.9%-18.5%38.9%100.0%1.200
0.5
17:43
#72 L. Adam (C)
0
1
1
0
0
2
12:3245.0%+7.3%47.4%50.0%1.056
0.6
12:45
#10 C. Ehrhoff (D)
0
1
1
+1
0
1
15:4538.2%-2.2%37.0%66.7%1.179
0.6
25:13
#8 C. McCormick (C)
0
0
0
0
5
1
7:5660.0%+25.2%60.0%1.000
0.3
7:59
#9 D. Roy (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
10:5230.4%-12.7%26.3%0.0%0.909
-0.4
16:28
#21 D. Stafford (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
9:4931.8%-10.6%27.8%0.0%0.917
-0.4
11:51
#23 V. Leino (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
10:4936.4%-4.3%29.4%0.0%0.909
-0.5
11:10
#28 P. Gaustad (C)
0
0
0
+1
0
0
10:0631.6%-10.4%50.0%100.0%1.167
-0.1
17:46
#37 M. Ellis (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
3
7:4252.6%+17.1%50.0%1.000
0.3
7:45
#3 J. Leopold (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
13:2640.9%+1.9%40.0%0.0%0.900
-0.2
18:27
#17 M. Gragnani (D)
0
0
0
-2
0
1
12:5250.0%+14.4%50.0%0.0%0.750
-0.2
15:10
#24 R. Regehr (D)
0
0
0
+1
2
1
12:1941.7%+3.1%50.0%100.0%1.143
-0.1
19:13
#44 A. Sekera (D)
0
0
0
+1
6
1
15:4834.4%-8.5%34.8%100.0%1.167
-0.6
21:09
#57 T. Myers (D)
0
0
0
0
2
2
13:3135.7%-5.8%44.4%1.000
0.1
21:37
Total
4
8
12
24
26
6.2

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#1 J. Enroth432.9532.660:00W

Team Stats

CBJBUF
43Shots on Goal26
6.7%Shooting % (5v5)10.5%
.895Save % (5v5).933
0.961PDO (5v5)1.039
38 (46%)Faceoffs Won44 (54%)
6Power Play Chances3
0%PP%67%
33%PK%100%
0PPG2
18Penalty Minutes24
10Hits14
7Blocked Shots19
5Giveaways7
5Takeaways6

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
14:07GOAL (BUF): Brad Boyes (1), assists: Thomas Vanek, Jason Pominville(PP)
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
04:51GOAL (BUF): Jason Pominville (1), assists: Thomas Vanek, Luke Adam
12:10GOAL (CBJ): Vinny Prospal (1), assists: Antoine Vermette, R.J. Umberger
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
10:51GOAL (CBJ): Fedor Tyutin (1), assists: Samuel Pahlsson, James Wisniewski
14:08GOAL (BUF): Patrick Kaleta (1), assists: Nathan Gerbe, Christian Ehrhoff
17:36GOAL (BUF): Jason Pominville (2), assists: Thomas Vanek, Brad Boyes(PP)
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs TBL (Oct 25, 2011)vs FLA (Oct 29, 2011) ›