vs NJD (Nov 11, 2016)@ STL (Nov 15, 2016) ›

November 12, 2016

Prudential Center | Newark

BUF 24 NJD

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs NJD all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
BUF0112
NJD1214
Shots on goal BUF 23, NJD 27W C. SchneiderL R. Lehner
Summary

NJD had the better expected goals in all situations and won 4-2.

FINISHING
Buffalo 2 goals on 1.67 xG
NJD 4 goals on 2.48 xG
IN NET
Buffalo R. Lehner .852 (-1.5 GSAx)
NJD C. Schneider .913 (-0.3 GSAx)
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 0 of 1
NJD 0 of 5
TURNING POINT
N. Lappin goal (P2 6:11), Sabres win chance drops from 46% to 23%
BEST LINE
Gionta–Foligno–Larsson, 90.9% of 5v5 xG and 1-0 on goals
BEST PAIR
Falk–Nelson, 83.0% of 5v5 xG and 1-1 on goals
WIN DNA
1 of 8 winning traits
SHIFTS
New Jersey scored while Buffalo was pinned
Game Leaders
M. Moulson
1 (1G)
POINTS
M. Foligno
1.2
GAME SCORE
J. Larsson
21:05
TOI (F)
R. Ristolainen
27:15
TOI (D)
R. Lehner
.852 (23/27)
SAVE %
Game Control
BUFNJDBUF shareNJD share
5-on-5
Expected goals1.611.0760.1%39.9%
Shot attempts343152.3%47.7%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted32.732.150.4%49.6%
High-danger chances4266.7%33.3%
Power play
Goals, of chances0 of 1 (0%)0 of 5 (0%)
Expected goals0.000.830.0%100.0%
Shot attempts0130.0%100.0%
High-danger chances040.0%100.0%
Shorthanded expected goals0.010.00100.0%0.0%
All situations
Expected goals1.672.4840.2%59.8%
Shot attempts384943.7%56.3%
High-danger chances4930.8%69.2%

The Sabres had the better 5-on-5 chances, NJD the better chances in all situations.

How this is measured

Shot attempts include missed and blocked shots. Expected goals (xG) weigh each unblocked shot by its chance of going in; high-danger is 0.12 xG or more. Power-play goals and chances are the NHL's line, which counts a double minor as two chances and a 5-on-3 from two penalties as two, so the count can run above the number of penalties in the Full Game Log below. Score-adjusted is the share as if the game were tied at a neutral site. Best line and pair: among units with a winning 5-on-5 xG share, at least 2:00 together (4:00 for a pair) and 0.25 xG in those minutes (half that where a goal was scored in them), one that came out ahead on the goals scored and allowed with it out ranks first; the rest is the best mix of that share and those goals, weighted two to one.

Gionta–Foligno–LarssonBEST LINE

90.9% of xG (0.48 to 0.05), 1-0 on goals and 8-4 on attempts in 12:02 together. Foligno scored with the line out.

Falk–NelsonBEST D PAIR

83.0% of xG (0.74 to 0.15), 1-1 on goals and 10-2 on attempts in 9:18 together.

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFNJD

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-NJD.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won11-810-138-1029-31
Hits6-87-55-518-18
Takeaways2-01-11-04-1
Giveaways0-21-33-34-8
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.924NJD 1.076. Shooting % plus save %. About 1.000 is neutral.

Game Flow

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

Tied for only 7 minutes, too few for a score-tied view.

P3 20:00
+12+60-6-12shot attemptsBUFNJD

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 44%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFNJD
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P2 06:11N. Lappin (2) 46% to 23%-23
  2. P2 03:41M. Foligno (3) 24% to 46%+22
  3. P1 04:01K. Quincey (1) 44% to 27%-17
  4. P2 11:17K. Palmieri (3) 22% to 8%-14

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.

Expected Goals

Cumulative xG from the game. What is xG?

BUF 1.67xGNJD 2.48
P3 20:00
0123123

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
OT 0:00
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

1 of 8 winning traits showed up tonight. Win rates are over the full 2016–17 regular season (82 games).

Wins (33)Losses (49, 12 in overtime or a shootout)This game
3+ scorersxG share 50%+, allGoalie > xGD combined 3+ ptsScored firstMore HD chances, allShot qualityDepth goal50%100%
No
3+ different scorers
Sabres win 75% when yes, 18% when no
No
xG share 50%+ (all situations)
Sabres win 64% when yes, 28% when no
No
Goalie beat expected
Sabres win 52% when yes, 24% when no
No
Defensemen combined for 3+ points
Sabres win 83% when yes, 28% when no
No
Scored first
Sabres win 51% when yes, 29% when no
No
More high-danger chances (all situations)
Sabres win 52% when yes, 33% when no
No
Better shot quality than opponent
Sabres win 58% when yes, 21% when no
Yes
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 45% when yes, 34% when no

Shift Rhythm

New Jersey scored while Buffalo was pinned.

Buffalo sent skaters back out on short rest 39 times, well above the typical 27 a game.

R. Ristolainen went back out on short rest 9 times, once after only 16 seconds on the bench. In a typical game, the busiest skater does it about 5 times.

BUFNJDTypical game, 2016–17
Pinned time (5v5)0:310:320:54
Shot attempts against while pinned101
Short-rest shifts392927
xG against, skaters 40+ seconds into a shift25%43%

When New Jersey was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P117:32 to 17:340:0200
P21:00 to 1:040:0400
P22:04 to 2:080:0400
P29:54 to 10:050:11
T. Hall 1:11
00
P34:10 to 4:210:1100

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P12:24 to 2:260:02
J. Falk 1:02
00
P13:59 to 4:010:0211
P116:33 to 16:350:02
E. Kane 1:02
00
P117:35 to 17:390:0400
P216:12 to 16:190:0700
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 2016–17, a pinned team took 28% of the shot attempts; pinned time was 2.0% 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).

Tired legs. Every shot attempt is tagged by how far into their shifts the defending skaters were, on average, at that moment (goalies left out). The row is the share of xG against that came with them 40 seconds or more in. xG covers goals, shots on goal and misses. Shots are counted from the play-by-play.

Typical game. The middle value across Buffalo games in the 2016–17 regular season, counting both teams (164 team totals), so it stands in for a league-average game. 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.

33 shifts, averaging 0:50. 3 hemmed-in, 9 after a short rest, 0:01 pinned.

Replay
Shift 33
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:48P2avg 0:46P3avg 0:540:000:301:001:302:0015101520253033Shift Number

Period averages are even strength only. Typical in 2016–17: 0:45, 0:49 (the long change), 0:46.

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
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Gionta–Foligno–Larsson112:020.480.0590.9%108466.7%16.7%33.5%5242
Okposo–Kane–Reinhart15:240.060.0844.0%003442.9%-9.2%-17.6%3221
Okposo–Carrier–Reinhart14:460.030.0441.8%004180.0%29.6%-19.6%4131
Grant–Schneider–Baptiste13:480.020.1612.0%002250.0%-1.6%-51.1%1211
Moulson–Kane–Girgensons13:190.090.2624.6%022528.6%-24.3%-39.4%2423
Moulson–Girgensons–Carrier12:570.380.0490.6%003175.0%24.2%32.3%3131
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Franson–McCabe117:140.270.4139.7%10101245.5%-7.3%-24.9%8878
Gorges–Ristolainen114:500.390.2363.1%019950.0%-1.8%2.3%6653
Falk–Nelson19:180.740.1583.0%1110283.3%35.0%27.0%6251
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1K. PalmieriNJD | C1G 0A 1P
2A. HenriqueNJD | C0G 2A 2P
3T. HallNJD | LW0G 2A 2P

Box Score

ON-ICE RATES
Player
G
A
P
+/-
PIM
SOG
ixG
iGAx
On-Ice
Game Score
TOI
On-Ice TOIxGF%xGF% RelCF%CF% RelFF%GF%PDOxGSGS
#12 B. Gionta (RW)
0
1
1
0
0
1
0.02
0.0
13:2766.5%+7.4%52.9%+0.9%54.5%50.0%1.000
1.00.9
17:10
#26 M. Moulson (LW)
1
0
1
-1
0
2
0.29
+0.7
9:3171.9%+20.8%55.6%+4.5%56.3%33.3%0.792
0.60.9
10:12
#27 D. Grant (C)
0
1
1
+1
0
1
0.10
-0.1
6:2157.7%-4.7%44.4%-9.1%42.9%100.0%1.333
0.80.9
10:52
#82 M. Foligno (LW)
1
0
1
0
2
2
0.38
+0.6
15:1491.0%+38.1%61.1%+12.2%60.0%100.0%1.200
0.61.2
16:44
#6 C. Franson (D)
0
1
1
0
2
1
0.04
0.0
18:0439.3%-31.8%44.0%-13.5%47.4%50.0%1.025
0.50.5
21:45
#9 E. Kane (LW)
0
0
0
-3
4
1
0.04
0.0
11:3125.0%-48.4%29.4%-31.0%38.5%0.0%0.500
-0.5-1.0
13:35
#10 C. Schneider (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
3
0.04
0.0
7:5845.3%-18.4%63.6%+13.6%42.9%1.000
0.40.4
7:58
#21 K. Okposo (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.02
0.0
15:3733.6%-31.3%52.6%+0.5%53.8%1.000
0.10.1
20:08
#22 J. Larsson (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
16:3976.4%+20.4%56.5%+6.5%50.0%50.0%0.950
0.40.3
21:05
#23 S. Reinhart (C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
15:3059.6%-2.2%55.0%+3.9%58.8%1.000
0.10.1
18:11
#28 Z. Girgensons (C)
0
0
0
-2
0
4
0.39
-0.4
8:5853.4%-12.6%46.2%-7.7%45.5%0.0%0.600
0.50.0
10:45
#48 W. Carrier (LW)
0
0
0
+1
0
3
0.07
-0.1
10:3972.7%+18.7%55.6%+4.5%60.0%100.0%1.125
0.60.7
11:57
#73 N. Baptiste (RW)
0
0
0
0
2
0
0.01
0.0
8:3511.3%-54.5%45.5%-8.2%25.0%1.000
-0.2-0.2
9:17
#4 J. Gorges (D)
0
0
0
-2
0
0
15:2456.0%-7.6%45.0%-10.6%42.9%0.0%0.600
0.1-0.2
21:38
#29 J. McCabe (D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
-0.1
17:4941.4%-28.2%50.0%-3.7%55.6%100.0%1.125
0.20.2
23:07
#34 C. Nelson (D)
0
0
0
0
2
1
0.02
0.0
9:5079.2%+29.3%78.6%+33.5%70.0%50.0%0.700
0.40.3
11:44
#41 J. Falk (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.08
-0.1
13:2778.9%+30.2%61.9%+14.2%53.3%50.0%0.893
0.50.3
14:45
#55 R. Ristolainen (D)
0
0
0
-2
0
2
0.08
-0.1
18:4661.5%+0.2%48.1%-7.1%47.4%0.0%0.800
0.20.0
27:15
Total
2
3
5
12
23
1.67
5.4

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#40 R. Lehner2742.5.852-1.5-0.760:00L

Team Stats

BUFNJD
23Shots on Goal27
10.0%Shooting % (5v5)17.6%
.824Save % (5v5).900
0.924PDO (5v5)1.076
29 (48%)Faceoffs Won31 (52%)
1Power Play Chances5
0%PP%0%
100%PK%100%
0PPG0
12Penalty Minutes6
18Hits18
13Blocked Shots11
4Giveaways8
4Takeaways1

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
04:01GOAL (NJD): Kyle Quincey (1), assists: Damon Severson, Adam HenriquexG 0.04
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
03:41GOAL (BUF): Marcus Foligno (3), assists: Brian GiontaxG 0.37
06:11GOAL (NJD): Nick Lappin (2), assists: Taylor Hall, Ben LovejoyxG 0.15
11:17GOAL (NJD): Kyle Palmieri (3), assists: Damon Severson, Andy GreenexG 0.06
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
06:32GOAL (NJD): John Moore (2), assists: Adam Henrique, Taylor HallxG 0.12
09:43GOAL (BUF): Matt Moulson (6), assists: Derek Grant, Cody FransonxG 0.18
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs NJD (Nov 11, 2016)@ STL (Nov 15, 2016) ›