vs WPG (Mar 26, 2016)@ PIT (Mar 29, 2016) ›

March 28, 2016

Joe Louis Arena | Detroit

BUF 23 DET

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs DET all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
BUF0022
DET1113
Shots on goal BUF 20, DET 29W J. HowardL C. Johnson
Summary

DET had more shot attempts in all situations and won 3-2.

IN NET
Buffalo C. Johnson .929
DET J. Howard .900
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 0 of 3
DET 1 of 5
TURNING POINT
D. Larkin, power play goal (P1 18:32), Sabres win chance drops from 43% to 25%
WIN DNA
1 of 4 winning traits
SHIFTS
Buffalo pinned 1:54 at 5v5 (typical 0:53)
Game Leaders
S. Reinhart
1 (1G)
POINTS
C. Nelson
1.2
GAME SCORE
R. O'Reilly
20:56
TOI (F)
R. Ristolainen
26:21
TOI (D)
C. Johnson
.929 (26/28)
SAVE %

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFDET

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-DET.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won6-1810-512-1028-33
Hits7-511-45-123-10
Takeaways3-41-21-65-12
Giveaways4-43-11-18-6
PDO (5v5): BUF 1.063DET 0.937. 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
+25+130-13-25shot attemptsBUFDET

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 45%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFDET
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P1 18:32D. Larkin (22), power play 43% to 25%-18
  2. P2 09:05R. Sheahan (12) 23% to 8%-15
  3. P1 18:09Interference on Josh Gorges, 2 min 46% to 42%-4
  4. P1 13:27Hooking on Brad Richards, 2 min 43% to 47%+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 19:45
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 2015–16 regular season (82 games).

Wins (35)Losses (47, 11 in overtime or a shootout)This game
3+ scorersD combined 3+ ptsScored firstDepth goal50%100%
No
3+ different scorers
Sabres win 83% when yes, 19% when no
No
Defensemen combined for 3+ points
Sabres win 63% when yes, 37% when no
No
Scored first
Sabres win 60% when yes, 30% when no
Yes
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 62% when yes, 27% when no

Shift Rhythm

Buffalo was pinned for 1:54 at 5v5, well above the typical 0:53 a game, and gave up 2 shot attempts in that time.

J. McCabe was out for 1:13 of it, the most on the team.

Detroit sent skaters back out on short rest 32 times, well above the typical 22 a game.

R. Ristolainen went back out on short rest 9 times, once after only 20 seconds on the bench. In a typical game, the busiest skater does it about 4 times.

BUFDETTypical game, 2025–26
Pinned time (5v5)1:540:440:53
Shot attempts against while pinned221
Short-rest shifts273222

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P15:29 to 6:170:4820
P24:22 to 4:510:2900
P210:39 to 10:510:1200
P214:55 to 15:170:2200
P31:44 to 1:450:0100

When Detroit was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P13:13 to 3:160:0300
P16:15 to 6:170:0200
P23:45 to 3:470:0200
P28:21 to 8:570:3620
P36:14 to 6:150:0100
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 (in 2025–26, a pinned team took 24% of the shot attempts; pinned time was 1.9% of all 5v5 play). 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).

Typical game. The middle value across Buffalo games in the 2025–26 regular season, counting both teams (164 team totals), so it stands in for a league-average game. This season has no measured row yet, so 2025–26 stands in. A sentence at the top only appears when a number is among the highest fifth of those, or when a goal went in while a team was pinned.

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 0:47. 2 hemmed-in, 9 after a short rest, 0:14 pinned.

Replay
Shift 34
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:36P2avg 0:37P3avg 1:170:000:301:001:302:002:303:0015101520253034Shift Number

Period averages are even strength only. Typical in 2025–26: 0:45, 0:50 (the long change), 0:47.

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
Gionta–Foligno–Larsson17:02003925.0%-14.8%2915
Girgensons–Reinhart–Eichel15:10003442.9%4.8%2313
Legwand–Moulson–Fasching13:1200010.0%-38.7%0000
O'Reilly–Kane–Deslauriers13:1000060.0%-40.4%0302
O'Reilly–Reinhart–Eichel12:59001233.3%-5.2%0201
O'Reilly–Kane–Fasching12:08002166.7%29.1%2111
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIGFGACFCACF%CF% RelFFFASFSA
Bogosian–McCabe114:410071041.2%3.3%4827
Gorges–Ristolainen113:550151722.7%-19.1%31319
Pysyk–Nelson18:02006366.7%30.7%3220
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1R. SheahanDET | C1G 0A 1P
2D. LarkinDET | C1G 0A 1P
3L. GlendeningDET | C1G 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
#12 B. Gionta (RW)
0
1
1
0
0
0
12:2633.3%-5.7%31.6%50.0%1.208
0.4
16:47
#23 S. Reinhart (C)
1
0
1
+1
0
4
11:1441.7%+5.7%37.5%1.000
1.0
15:55
#28 Z. Girgensons (C)
1
0
1
+1
0
3
11:2245.0%+11.7%47.1%100.0%1.167
1.1
14:17
#90 R. O'Reilly (C)
0
1
1
0
0
3
13:0138.9%+2.5%41.7%1.000
0.6
20:56
#34 C. Nelson (D)
0
1
1
+2
0
0
9:2471.4%+44.3%70.0%100.0%1.200
1.2
13:51
#55 R. Ristolainen (D)
0
1
1
+1
0
2
16:3623.1%-24.1%20.0%50.0%1.409
0.0
26:21
#9 E. Kane (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
1
7:5038.5%+1.7%42.9%1.000
0.0
11:34
#15 J. Eichel (C)
0
0
0
0
0
1
13:4140.0%+4.3%23.1%1.000
-0.1
20:03
#17 D. Legwand (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
6:3414.3%-25.7%16.7%0.0%
-0.3
12:40
#22 J. Larsson (LW)
0
0
0
+1
2
0
12:1931.6%-8.0%20.0%100.0%1.500
-0.2
15:40
#26 M. Moulson (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
8:4433.3%-4.4%28.6%0.0%0.750
-0.2
11:00
#44 N. Deslauriers (LW)
0
0
0
0
2
0
10:3829.4%-10.6%27.3%1.000
-0.5
11:24
#52 H. Fasching (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
9:5554.5%+21.2%62.5%1.000
0.1
10:38
#82 M. Foligno (LW)
0
0
0
0
2
2
11:5341.2%+5.6%23.1%1.000
0.0
15:21
#3 M. Pysyk (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
10:5346.7%+12.6%40.0%1.000
0.1
12:22
#4 J. Gorges (D)
0
0
0
-1
2
0
16:2920.7%-30.8%18.2%0.0%0.917
-1.0
21:26
#29 J. McCabe (D)
0
0
0
-1
2
0
17:2540.9%+5.9%35.3%1.000
-0.3
20:57
#47 Z. Bogosian (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
16:0040.0%+4.3%33.3%1.000
0.0
23:17
Total
2
4
6
10
20
1.7

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#31 C. Johnson282.9291.157:08L

Team Stats

BUFDET
20Shots on Goal29
11.1%Shooting % (5v5)4.8%
.952Save % (5v5).889
1.063PDO (5v5)0.937
28 (46%)Faceoffs Won33 (54%)
3Power Play Chances5
0%PP%20%
80%PK%100%
0PPG1
10Penalty Minutes6
23Hits10
11Blocked Shots17
8Giveaways6
5Takeaways12

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
18:32GOAL (DET): Dylan Larkin (22), assists: Henrik Zetterberg, Niklas Kronwall(PP)
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
09:05GOAL (DET): Riley Sheahan (12), unassisted
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
17:00GOAL (DET): Luke Glendening (8), assists: Henrik Zetterberg(EN)
17:10GOAL (BUF): Zemgus Girgensons (6), assists: Brian Gionta, Rasmus Ristolainen
18:11GOAL (BUF): Sam Reinhart (22), assists: Casey Nelson, Ryan O'Reilly(PP)
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs WPG (Mar 26, 2016)@ PIT (Mar 29, 2016) ›