vs BOS (Dec 3, 2016)vs EDM (Dec 6, 2016) ›

December 5, 2016

Verizon Center | Washington

BUF 23 WSH

FINAL / OT

Head-to-Head vs WSH all-time
1ST2ND3RDOTT
BUF11002
WSH01113
Shots on goal BUF 33, WSH 33W B. HoltbyL R. Lehner
Summary

Buffalo had the better expected goals in all situations and lost 2-3 in overtime.

FINISHING
Buffalo 2 goals on 3.73 xG
WSH 3 goals on 3.14 xG
IN NET
Buffalo R. Lehner .909 (+0.1 GSAx)
WSH B. Holtby .939 (+1.7 GSAx)
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 0 of 3
WSH 1 of 3
TURNING POINT
M. Johansson goal (OT 2:38), Sabres win chance drops from 49% to 0%
BEST LINE
Moulson–Grant–Girgensons, 86.0% of 5v5 xG and 1-0 on goals
BEST PAIR
McCabe–Ristolainen, 61.9% of 5v5 xG and 1-0 on goals
WIN DNA
6 of 8 winning traits
SHIFTS
Buffalo pinned 1:30 at 5v5 (typical 0:54)
Game Leaders
K. Okposo
1 (1G)
POINTS
R. O'Reilly
1.6
GAME SCORE
R. O'Reilly
22:48
TOI (F)
R. Ristolainen
29:51
TOI (D)
R. Lehner
.909 (30/33)
SAVE %
Game Control
BUFWSHBUF shareWSH share
5-on-5
Expected goals3.311.5867.6%32.4%
Shot attempts495248.5%51.5%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted52.248.052.1%47.9%
High-danger chances7277.8%22.2%
Power play
Goals, of chances0 of 3 (0%)1 of 3 (33%)
Expected goals0.120.9311.2%88.8%
Shot attempts91047.4%52.6%
High-danger chances010.0%100.0%
Shorthanded expected goals0.000.300.0%100.0%
All situations
Expected goals3.733.1454.3%45.7%
Shot attempts626847.7%52.3%
High-danger chances9660.0%40.0%

Score-adjusted, Buffalo's share of 5-on-5 attempts is 52.1%: it took its attempts where teams usually shoot less (leading, or on the road).

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.

Moulson–Grant–GirgensonsBEST LINE

86.0% of xG (0.71 to 0.12), 1-0 on goals and 5-3 on attempts in 4:05 together. Girgensons scored with the line out.

McCabe–RistolainenBEST D PAIR

61.9% of xG (1.01 to 0.62), 1-0 on goals and 18-19 on attempts in 18:16 together.

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFWSH

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-WSH.
 1ST2ND3RDOTTotal
Faceoffs Won6-910-912-81-029-26
Hits11-1215-512-71-039-24
Takeaways1-62-32-31-06-12
Giveaways7-60-22-10-09-9
PDO (5v5): BUF 1.025WSH 0.975. Shooting % plus save %. About 1.000 is neutral.

Game Flow

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

OT 2:38
+12+60-6-12shot attemptsBUFWSH

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 41%.

OT 2:38
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFWSH
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. OT 02:38M. Johansson (11) 49% to 0%-49
  2. P3 13:42M. Johansson (10), power play 83% to 46%-37
  3. P2 15:23K. Okposo (8) 44% to 72%+28
  4. P2 05:23J. Beagle (5) 67% to 43%-24

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 3.73xGWSH 3.14
OT 20:00
01234123OT

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
OT 2:38
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

6 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
Yes
xG share 50%+ (all situations)
Sabres win 64% when yes, 28% when no
Yes
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
Yes
Scored first
Sabres win 51% when yes, 29% when no
Yes
More high-danger chances (all situations)
Sabres win 52% when yes, 33% when no
Yes
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

Buffalo was pinned for 1:30 at 5v5, well above the typical 0:54 a game, and gave up 3 shot attempts in that time.

C. Franson was out for 0:50 of it, the most on the team.

Washington was pinned for 2:00 at 5v5, well above the typical 0:54 a game, and gave up 5 shot attempts in that time.

BUFWSHTypical game, 2016–17
Pinned time (5v5)1:302:000:54
Shot attempts against while pinned351
Short-rest shifts331627
xG against, skaters 40+ seconds into a shift44%27%

When Washington was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P18:42 to 8:590:1700
P110:42 to 10:450:0300
P21:31 to 1:340:0300
P22:51 to 3:000:0900
P26:23 to 6:420:1900

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P11:00 to 1:060:0600
P18:50 to 8:570:0700
P110:42 to 10:470:0500
P26:23 to 6:390:16
E. Kane 1:16
10
P28:11 to 8:230:1200
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 (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.

32 shifts, averaging 0:54. 7 hemmed-in, 7 after a short rest, 0:33 pinned.

Replay
Shift 32
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:52P2avg 0:48P3avg 0:48OTavg 1:050:000:301:001:302:002:3015101520253032Shift 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
Kane–Reinhart–Eichel112:040.180.1948.8%0081732.0%-18.8%-24.1%61055
Okposo–O'Reilly–Carrier111:020.840.1684.0%1010855.6%7.8%14.1%9695
Gionta–Foligno–Larsson19:290.180.3732.6%0191047.4%-1.2%-42.2%6835
Moulson–Grant–Girgensons14:050.710.1286.0%105362.5%14.6%16.0%4343
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
McCabe–Ristolainen118:161.010.6261.9%10181948.6%0.1%-12.5%1715119
Franson–Guhle112:320.210.1656.1%1091340.9%-8.5%-16.4%6554
Falk–Burgdoerfer19:360.160.2143.2%01101343.5%-5.7%-29.9%8946
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1M. JohanssonWSH | LW2G 0A 2P
2J. BeagleWSH | C1G 0A 1P
3R. RistolainenBUF | D0G 1A 1P

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
#21 K. Okposo (RW)
1
0
1
+1
0
3
0.22
+0.8
15:5381.2%+19.8%58.1%+13.8%65.4%100.0%1.071
0.91.4
20:41
#27 D. Grant (C)
0
1
1
+1
0
1
0.00
0.0
5:1285.0%+16.9%58.3%+11.1%55.6%100.0%1.250
1.01.0
6:38
#28 Z. Girgensons (C)
1
0
1
+1
0
2
0.55
+0.5
7:5883.7%+15.5%61.1%+15.3%64.3%100.0%1.167
0.91.3
8:07
#48 W. Carrier (LW)
0
1
1
+1
2
1
0.48
-0.5
12:3382.1%+20.3%59.3%+14.7%65.0%100.0%1.083
1.30.9
12:48
#90 R. O'Reilly (C)
0
1
1
+1
0
6
0.43
-0.4
17:0082.2%+14.9%60.7%+16.9%65.2%100.0%1.091
1.91.6
22:48
#55 R. Ristolainen (D)
0
1
1
+1
0
3
0.14
-0.1
22:0074.5%+8.1%54.3%+10.7%57.5%100.0%1.059
1.41.3
29:51
#9 E. Kane (LW)
0
0
0
0
4
2
0.19
-0.2
16:4550.0%-24.3%34.3%-21.8%40.0%1.000
-0.4-0.5
21:04
#12 B. Gionta (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
0.12
-0.1
11:2732.6%-45.7%41.7%-9.0%33.3%0.0%0.800
0.0-0.2
16:49
#15 J. Eichel (C)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.05
0.0
13:2948.0%-26.3%35.7%-17.7%42.1%1.000
-0.3-0.3
18:31
#22 J. Larsson (LW)
0
0
0
-2
0
2
0.86
-0.9
13:2362.1%-15.9%45.7%-4.3%48.1%0.0%0.857
0.7-0.1
17:04
#23 S. Reinhart (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.03
0.0
14:1551.7%-22.4%35.7%-17.7%44.4%1.000
-0.2-0.2
18:14
#26 M. Moulson (LW)
0
0
0
+1
0
0
6:0583.8%+15.9%60.0%+12.7%55.6%100.0%1.200
0.20.3
9:15
#82 M. Foligno (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.24
-0.2
12:3636.9%-41.6%51.9%+4.6%55.0%0.0%0.833
0.40.1
13:14
#6 C. Franson (D)
0
0
0
+1
0
2
0.05
-0.1
16:5979.8%+10.6%43.8%-7.0%47.4%100.0%1.125
0.20.2
20:45
#29 J. McCabe (D)
0
0
0
+1
0
4
0.26
-0.3
20:5461.1%-18.8%45.0%-5.8%48.6%100.0%1.091
0.60.5
28:52
#41 J. Falk (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
0.12
-0.1
11:4588.2%+30.0%60.0%+17.6%61.5%0.0%0.833
0.80.4
12:46
#45 B. Guhle (D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
16:0347.5%-27.4%40.0%-11.3%50.0%100.0%1.167
-0.10.1
16:48
#46 E. Burgdoerfer (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
10:0337.4%-38.5%41.7%-9.0%44.4%0.0%0.857
-0.2-0.4
10:03
Total
2
4
6
6
33
3.73
7.4

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#40 R. Lehner3333.1.909+0.10.862:09O

Team Stats

BUFWSH
33Shots on Goal33
6.9%Shooting % (5v5)4.3%
.957Save % (5v5).931
1.025PDO (5v5)0.975
29 (53%)Faceoffs Won26 (47%)
3Power Play Chances3
0%PP%33%
67%PK%100%
0PPG1
6Penalty Minutes6
39Hits24
18Blocked Shots17
9Giveaways9
6Takeaways12

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
05:59GOAL (BUF): Zemgus Girgensons (2), assists: Derek Grant, Rasmus RistolainenxG 0.11
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
05:23GOAL (WSH): Jay Beagle (5), assists: Brooks Orpik, Daniel WinnikxG 0.10
15:23GOAL (BUF): Kyle Okposo (8), assists: Ryan O'Reilly, William CarrierxG 0.04
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
13:42GOAL (WSH): Marcus Johansson (10), assists: John Carlson, Justin Williams(PP)xG 0.10
20:00Period end
OT
00:00Period start
02:38GOAL (WSH): Marcus Johansson (11), assists: Dmitry Orlov, Evgeny KuznetsovxG 0.18
02:38Period end
02:38Game end
vs BOS (Dec 3, 2016)vs EDM (Dec 6, 2016) ›