vs COL (Feb 16, 2017)vs CHI (Feb 19, 2017) ›

February 18, 2017

KeyBank Center | Buffalo

STL 23 BUF

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs STL all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
STL1012
BUF1203
Shots on goal STL 39, BUF 28W R. LehnerL J. Allen
Summary

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

FINISHING
Buffalo 3 goals on 3.25 xG
STL 2 goals on 2.62 xG
IN NET
Buffalo R. Lehner .949 (+0.6 GSAx)
STL J. Allen .893 (-0.4 GSAx)
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 1 of 6
STL 0 of 3
TURNING POINT
E. Kane goal (P2 11:58), Sabres win chance rises from 51% to 76%
BEST LINE
Kane–Baptiste–Eichel, 50.4% of 5v5 xG and 2-0 on goals
BEST PAIR
Gorges–Ristolainen, 54.8% of 5v5 xG and 1-0 on goals
WIN DNA
6 of 8 winning traits
Game Leaders
E. Kane
2 (1G-1A)
POINTS
J. Eichel
1.9
GAME SCORE
J. Eichel
8
SHOTS
J. Eichel
24:23
TOI (F)
R. Ristolainen
25:48
TOI (D)
R. Lehner
.949 (37/39)
SAVE %
Game Control
BUFSTLBUF shareSTL share
5-on-5
Expected goals0.871.6534.5%65.5%
Shot attempts294340.3%59.7%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted29.541.941.3%58.7%
High-danger chances2340.0%60.0%
Power play
Goals, of chances1 of 6 (17%)0 of 3 (0%)
Expected goals1.750.4878.6%21.4%
Shot attempts22678.6%21.4%
High-danger chances4180.0%20.0%
Shorthanded expected goals0.000.140.0%100.0%
All situations
Expected goals3.252.6255.4%44.6%
Shot attempts525946.8%53.2%
High-danger chances7653.8%46.2%

STL had the better 5-on-5 chances, the Sabres 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.

Kane–Baptiste–EichelBEST LINE

50.4% of xG (0.25 to 0.24), 2-0 on goals and 9-9 on attempts in 8:45 together. Baptiste and Kane scored 2 goals with the line out. Few chances either way.

Gorges–RistolainenBEST D PAIR

54.8% of xG (0.18 to 0.15), 1-0 on goals and 2-8 on attempts in 4:09 together. Small sample.

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFSTL

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-STL.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won8-1411-613-532-25
Hits6-64-22-512-13
Takeaways0-05-13-08-1
Giveaways0-23-11-24-5
PDO (5v5): BUF 1.125STL 0.875. 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
+7+40-4-7shot attemptsBUFSTL

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 51%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFSTL
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P2 11:58E. Kane (20) 51% to 76%+25
  2. P1 09:34N. Baptiste (3) 31% to 51%+20
  3. P1 01:31V. Tarasenko (28), power play 51% to 32%-19
  4. P2 19:28R. O'Reilly (13), power play 82% to 95%+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.

Expected Goals

Cumulative xG from the game. What is xG?

STL 2.62xGBUF 3.25
P3 20:00
01234123

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
P3 19:58
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%
Yes
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
No
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

Nothing in either team's shifts stood out: pinned time, short rest were all close to a typical game this season.

BUFSTLTypical game, 2016–17
Pinned time (5v5)1:130:330:54
Shot attempts against while pinned301
Short-rest shifts171827
xG against, skaters 40+ seconds into a shift36%32%

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P116:56 to 16:590:0300
P21:19 to 1:300:1110
P23:45 to 3:560:1100
P29:33 to 9:380:0500
P213:33 to 13:440:1100

When St. Louis was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P13:54 to 3:550:0100
P23:45 to 3:570:1200
P211:36 to 11:440:0800
P215:31 to 15:420:1100
P318:24 to 18:250:0100
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 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.

27 shifts, averaging 0:57. 3 hemmed-in, 1 after a short rest, 0:25 pinned.

Replay
Shift 27
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:49P2avg 0:56P3avg 1:010:000:301:001:302:00151015202527Shift 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
Okposo–O'Reilly–Bailey110:320.030.733.3%0061627.3%-15.3%-37.3%413210
Kane–Baptiste–Eichel18:450.250.2450.4%209950.0%11.1%18.9%7845
Gionta–Foligno–Rodrigues15:480.030.0436.2%004450.0%10.3%2.5%4222
Moulson–Ennis–Deslauriers13:090.220.00100.0%0030100.0%61.0%70.1%3030
Moulson–Ennis–Eichel12:460.080.00100.0%003175.0%35.7%67.5%2020
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Franson–Bogosian113:040.310.1468.8%0010952.6%14.2%39.3%7644
McCabe–Ristolainen110:340.110.5716.8%0081044.4%4.7%-20.3%5958
Gorges–Kulikov110:310.000.220.5%002918.2%-23.9%-35.1%2917
Gorges–Ristolainen14:090.180.1554.8%102820.0%-21.8%22.8%2625
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1E. KaneBUF | LW1G 1A 2P
2N. BaptisteBUF | RW1G 1A 2P
3R. O'ReillyBUF | C1G 0A 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
#9 E. Kane (LW)
1
1
2
+2
0
1
0.20
+0.8
12:2840.9%+10.2%41.7%+2.1%38.1%100.0%1.400
0.61.5
18:38
#73 N. Baptiste (RW)
1
1
2
+1
0
1
0.16
+0.8
10:0841.5%+10.9%42.9%+3.6%38.9%100.0%1.500
0.61.5
11:52
#15 J. Eichel (C)
0
1
1
0
0
8
0.47
-0.5
16:2552.0%+30.0%51.7%+19.2%47.8%100.0%1.250
2.01.9
24:23
#21 K. Okposo (RW)
0
1
1
-1
0
2
0.34
-0.3
14:4311.6%-39.9%29.6%-17.0%23.8%1.000
0.30.2
22:26
#90 R. O'Reilly (C)
1
0
1
-1
0
5
1.26
-0.3
12:5611.8%-38.9%28.0%-18.8%25.0%1.000
0.90.8
23:38
#47 Z. Bogosian (D)
0
1
1
+1
0
2
0.03
0.0
15:0360.8%+39.2%50.0%+15.2%50.0%100.0%1.167
0.91.0
16:48
#55 R. Ristolainen (D)
0
1
1
0
0
3
0.21
-0.2
14:4629.1%-9.1%37.9%-3.9%34.8%100.0%1.125
0.80.9
25:48
#12 B. Gionta (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.12
-0.1
9:0222.3%-12.5%42.9%+3.2%50.0%1.000
0.10.0
15:52
#26 M. Moulson (LW)
0
0
0
0
2
0
0.09
-0.1
8:2092.7%+70.0%66.7%+30.2%71.4%1.000
0.20.1
14:07
#44 N. Deslauriers (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
0
3:2493.3%+67.4%75.0%+36.8%75.0%1.000
0.10.1
3:24
#56 J. Bailey (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0.04
0.0
11:493.0%-52.2%28.0%-18.8%21.1%1.000
-0.5-0.4
11:49
#63 T. Ennis (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.22
-0.2
8:2081.2%+58.0%60.0%+22.9%62.5%1.000
0.50.3
12:33
#71 E. Rodrigues (C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.09
-0.1
11:2813.2%-22.7%33.3%-8.8%38.5%1.000
-0.1-0.1
12:27
#82 M. Foligno (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.00
0.0
9:0419.6%-15.7%38.5%-2.2%45.5%1.000
0.00.0
11:07
#4 J. Gorges (D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
14:5530.5%-4.6%18.2%-31.8%20.0%100.0%1.333
-0.6-0.4
18:06
#6 C. Franson (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.01
0.0
14:1168.9%+44.9%54.5%+20.5%60.0%1.000
0.30.2
17:12
#29 J. McCabe (D)
0
0
0
+1
2
0
12:5321.5%-22.8%48.0%+11.8%45.0%100.0%1.143
-0.30.0
16:23
#77 D. Kulikov (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.01
0.0
13:583.5%-39.7%30.0%-14.2%30.0%1.000
-0.3-0.3
18:15
Total
3
6
9
4
28
3.25
7.1

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#40 R. Lehner3922.6.949+0.62.260:00W

Team Stats

STLBUF
39Shots on Goal28
0.0%Shooting % (5v5)12.5%
.875Save % (5v5)1.000
0.875PDO (5v5)1.125
25 (44%)Faceoffs Won32 (56%)
3Power Play Chances6
0%PP%17%
83%PK%100%
0PPG1
12Penalty Minutes6
13Hits12
9Blocked Shots11
5Giveaways4
1Takeaways8

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
01:31GOAL (STL): Vladimir Tarasenko (28), assists: Jaden Schwartz, Joel Edmundson(PP)xG 0.07
09:34GOAL (BUF): Nick Baptiste (3), assists: Jack Eichel, Evander KanexG 0.16
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
11:58GOAL (BUF): Evander Kane (20), assists: Zach Bogosian, Nick BaptistexG 0.08
19:28GOAL (BUF): Ryan O'Reilly (13), assists: Rasmus Ristolainen, Kyle Okposo(PP)xG 0.24
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
15:03GOAL (STL): Scottie Upshall (6), unassisted(SH)xG 0.13
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs COL (Feb 16, 2017)vs CHI (Feb 19, 2017) ›