@ PIT (Mar 5, 2017)@ CBJ (Mar 10, 2017) ›

March 7, 2017

KeyBank Center | Buffalo

PHI 63 BUF

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs PHI all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
PHI1326
BUF1113
Shots on goal PHI 30, BUF 34W S. MasonL R. Lehner
Summary

PHI had the better expected goals in all situations and won 6-3.

FINISHING
Buffalo 3 goals on 2.44 xG
PHI 6 goals on 2.74 xG
IN NET
Buffalo R. Lehner .800 (-3.3 GSAx)
PHI S. Mason .912 (-0.6 GSAx)
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 2 of 4
PHI 0 of 3
TURNING POINT
J. Weal goal (P2 13:48), Sabres win chance drops from 54% to 27%
BEST LINE
Moulson–Reinhart–Eichel, 86.8% of 5v5 xG and 0-1 on goals
BEST PAIR
Falk–Bogosian, 61.1% of 5v5 xG
WIN DNA
0 of 8 winning traits
SHIFTS
Philadelphia scored while Buffalo was pinned
Game Leaders
J. Eichel
3 (2G-1A)
POINTS
J. Eichel
2.3
GAME SCORE
E. Kane
0.67
XG
E. Kane
20:46
TOI (F)
R. Ristolainen
25:45
TOI (D)
R. Lehner
.800 (24/30)
SAVE %
Game Control
BUFPHIBUF sharePHI share
5-on-5
Expected goals2.131.7055.6%44.4%
Shot attempts454450.6%49.4%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted40.547.845.9%54.1%
High-danger chances7370.0%30.0%
Power play
Goals, of chances2 of 4 (50%)0 of 3 (0%)
Expected goals0.210.9418.2%81.8%
Shot attempts61135.3%64.7%
High-danger chances040.0%100.0%
Shorthanded expected goals0.000.102.0%98.0%
All situations
Expected goals2.442.7447.1%52.9%
Shot attempts555649.5%50.5%
High-danger chances7750.0%50.0%

Score-adjusted, Buffalo's share of 5-on-5 attempts is 45.9%: many of its attempts came while trailing or at home, where teams shoot more anyway. The Sabres had the better 5-on-5 chances, PHI 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.

Moulson–Reinhart–EichelBEST LINE

86.8% of xG (0.38 to 0.06), 0-1 on goals and 9-4 on attempts in 7:24 together. Few chances either way.

Falk–BogosianBEST D PAIR

61.1% of xG (0.32 to 0.20), 10-12 on attempts in 15:26 together.

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFPHI

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-PHI.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won9-1113-82-824-27
Hits7-37-89-223-13
Takeaways3-02-14-39-4
Giveaways5-13-33-011-4
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.763PHI 1.237. 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
+19+100-10-19shot attemptsBUFPHI

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 55%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFPHI
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P2 13:48J. Weal (2) 54% to 27%-27
  2. P2 07:14J. Eichel (17), power play 33% to 54%+21
  3. P1 04:34M. Read (8) 55% to 36%-19
  4. P1 15:25E. Kane (24), power play 36% to 54%+18

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?

PHI 2.74xGBUF 2.44
P3 20:00
0123123

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
P3 19:57
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

0 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
No
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 45% when yes, 34% when no

Shift Rhythm

Philadelphia scored while Buffalo was pinned.

BUFPHITypical game, 2016–17
Pinned time (5v5)0:370:370:54
Shot attempts against while pinned241
Short-rest shifts341827
xG against, skaters 40+ seconds into a shift36%33%

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P14:32 to 4:340:0211
P111:34 to 11:390:0500
P24:31 to 4:440:13
E. Kane 1:35
J. Falk 1:13
00
P25:58 to 6:050:0710
P28:56 to 8:570:0100

When Philadelphia was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P111:34 to 11:370:0300
P24:41 to 4:440:03
J. Weal 1:03
00
P26:41 to 6:440:0300
P28:56 to 9:010:0510
P32:10 to 2:230:1320
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.

29 shifts, averaging 0:47. 5 hemmed-in, 4 after a short rest, 0:20 pinned.

Replay
Shift 29
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:37P2avg 0:51P3avg 0:490:000:301:001:302:00151015202529Shift 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–O'Reilly–Kane18:160.340.3847.1%0161430.0%-23.2%-6.2%6866
Moulson–Reinhart–Eichel17:240.380.0686.8%019469.2%20.1%37.8%8271
Foligno–Reinhart–Eichel13:260.170.0868.0%013442.9%-8.0%16.4%3432
Moulson–Bailey–Rodrigues12:220.040.0261.0%002250.0%-0.6%8.7%1212
Ennis–Foligno–Girgensons12:140.020.0818.4%012528.6%-22.9%-34.7%2412
Ennis–Deslauriers–Girgensons12:060.120.00100.0%0030100.0%50.3%48.8%2010
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Falk–Bogosian115:260.320.2061.1%00101245.5%-5.8%9.7%9886
McCabe–Ristolainen115:000.510.5846.9%04181751.4%1.1%-7.0%131198
Gorges–Franson19:070.280.3048.8%017943.8%-7.4%-4.0%4444
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1C. GirouxPHI | RW1G 0A 1P
2R. GudasPHI | D1G 2A 3P
3J. EichelBUF | C2G 1A 3P

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
#15 J. Eichel (C)
2
1
3
-1
2
3
0.20
+1.8
15:1470.5%+26.6%61.5%+15.5%63.6%33.3%0.683
1.12.3
18:59
#9 E. Kane (LW)
1
1
2
-1
0
4
0.67
+0.3
15:2047.1%-9.8%48.6%-3.3%55.6%33.3%0.883
1.41.5
20:46
#90 R. O'Reilly (C)
0
1
1
-2
0
2
0.25
-0.2
13:5846.8%-10.4%46.9%-5.8%54.5%0.0%0.750
1.10.6
18:53
#6 C. Franson (D)
0
1
1
0
2
4
0.07
-0.1
12:2951.5%-1.1%54.5%+5.3%64.3%50.0%0.893
1.21.1
14:10
#55 R. Ristolainen (D)
0
1
1
-5
0
4
0.09
-0.1
18:3048.1%-8.9%51.2%+1.2%53.1%0.0%0.545
1.30.5
25:45
#12 B. Gionta (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.01
0.0
11:1146.1%-9.1%32.0%-25.8%41.2%0.0%0.875
-0.3-0.5
15:06
#23 S. Reinhart (C)
0
0
0
-2
0
3
0.40
-0.4
15:2062.3%+15.3%54.2%+4.9%60.0%0.0%0.600
0.70.0
18:39
#26 M. Moulson (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
5
0.21
-0.2
11:2267.9%+20.6%63.6%+17.4%66.7%0.0%0.750
0.90.6
13:21
#28 Z. Girgensons (C)
0
0
0
-2
0
0
0.18
-0.2
7:5833.7%-22.4%46.7%-4.7%41.7%0.0%0.600
0.1-0.3
11:11
#44 N. Deslauriers (LW)
0
0
0
-1
5
0
7:3138.9%-15.4%55.6%+5.6%50.0%0.0%0.500
0.0-0.1
7:54
#56 J. Bailey (RW)
0
0
0
+1
0
1
0.00
0.0
10:2677.7%+27.7%62.5%+14.6%75.0%100.0%1.143
0.30.4
10:26
#63 T. Ennis (RW)
0
0
0
-2
0
2
0.14
-0.1
9:2352.3%-0.1%55.6%+6.3%53.8%0.0%0.500
0.40.0
11:40
#71 E. Rodrigues (C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.0
12:3948.0%-4.7%44.4%-7.7%50.0%1.000
0.10.1
14:43
#82 M. Foligno (LW)
0
0
0
-3
0
0
12:1638.5%-18.0%44.0%-9.1%47.6%0.0%0.571
-0.2-0.6
15:17
#4 J. Gorges (D)
0
0
0
-2
2
0
12:2449.7%-3.9%43.5%-9.6%46.7%0.0%0.714
-0.3-0.5
15:12
#29 J. McCabe (D)
0
0
0
-3
0
3
0.15
-0.2
16:2349.1%-6.3%55.0%+8.1%58.6%20.0%0.639
0.60.1
21:16
#41 J. Falk (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.00
0.0
16:1961.8%+11.9%45.8%-6.5%52.6%1.000
0.10.1
18:34
#47 Z. Bogosian (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.05
0.0
18:5564.0%+15.4%50.0%-0.8%57.1%1.000
0.20.2
22:30
Total
3
5
8
11
34
2.44
5.3

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#40 R. Lehner3062.7.800-3.3-2.159:38L

Team Stats

PHIBUF
30Shots on Goal34
27.3%Shooting % (5v5)3.6%
.964Save % (5v5).727
1.237PDO (5v5)0.763
27 (53%)Faceoffs Won24 (47%)
3Power Play Chances4
0%PP%50%
50%PK%100%
0PPG2
13Penalty Minutes11
13Hits23
11Blocked Shots17
4Giveaways11
4Takeaways9

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
04:34GOAL (PHI): Matt Read (8), assists: Radko Gudas, Nick CousinsxG 0.06
15:25GOAL (BUF): Evander Kane (24), assists: Rasmus Ristolainen, Jack Eichel(PP)xG 0.06
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
04:58GOAL (PHI): Radko Gudas (4), assists: Sean CouturierxG 0.06
07:14GOAL (BUF): Jack Eichel (17), assists: Ryan O'Reilly(PP)xG 0.09
13:48GOAL (PHI): Jordan Weal (2), assists: Jakub Voracek, Sean CouturierxG 0.17
18:02GOAL (PHI): Claude Giroux (13), assists: Michael Del Zotto, Jordan WealxG 0.25
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
02:45GOAL (PHI): Chris VandeVelde (6), assists: Michael Del Zotto, Travis KonecnyxG 0.12
05:21GOAL (PHI): Travis Konecny (8), assists: Radko GudasxG 0.06
14:50GOAL (BUF): Jack Eichel (18), assists: Cody Franson, Evander KanexG 0.01
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
@ PIT (Mar 5, 2017)@ CBJ (Mar 10, 2017) ›