vs MTL (Oct 25, 2018)vs CGY (Oct 30, 2018) ›

October 27, 2018

Nationwide Arena | Columbus

BUF 45 CBJ

FINAL / OT

Head-to-Head vs CBJ all-time
1ST2ND3RDOTT
BUF20204
CBJ13015
Shots on goal BUF 38, CBJ 37W J. KorpisaloL L. Ullmark
Summary

CBJ had the better expected goals in all situations and won 5-4 in overtime.

FINISHING
Buffalo 4 goals on 3.47 xG
CBJ 5 goals on 4.01 xG
IN NET
Buffalo L. Ullmark .865 (-1.0 GSAx)
CBJ J. Korpisalo .895 (-0.5 GSAx)
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 1 of 5
CBJ 0 of 3
TURNING POINT
A. Panarin goal (OT 0:31), Sabres win chance drops from 49% to 0%
BEST LINE
Pominville–Skinner–Eichel, 70.8% of 5v5 xG and 2-0 on goals
BEST PAIR
Nelson–Dahlin, 58.7% of 5v5 xG and 1-1 on goals
WIN DNA
4 of 8 winning traits
SHIFTS
Columbus sent skaters out on short rest 33 times (typical 23)
Game Leaders
J. Pominville
2 (1G-1A)
POINTS
J. Pominville
2.3
GAME SCORE
J. Eichel
21:04
TOI (F)
R. Ristolainen
23:14
TOI (D)
L. Ullmark
.865 (32/37)
SAVE %
Game Control
BUFCBJBUF shareCBJ share
5-on-5
Expected goals2.723.6242.9%57.1%
Shot attempts515050.5%49.5%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted51.849.551.2%48.8%
High-danger chances71138.9%61.1%
Power play
Goals, of chances1 of 5 (20%)0 of 3 (0%)
Expected goals0.760.3171.2%28.8%
Shot attempts13765.0%35.0%
High-danger chances20100.0%0.0%
Shorthanded expected goals0.000.010.0%100.0%
All situations
Expected goals3.474.0146.4%53.6%
Shot attempts646250.8%49.2%
High-danger chances91145.0%55.0%
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.

Pominville–Skinner–EichelBEST LINE

70.8% of xG (0.90 to 0.37), 2-0 on goals and 18-11 on attempts in 11:03 together. Skinner and Pominville scored 2 goals with the line out.

Nelson–DahlinBEST D PAIR

58.7% of xG (0.91 to 0.64), 1-1 on goals and 16-13 on attempts in 10:53 together.

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFCBJ

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-CBJ.
 1ST2ND3RDOTTotal
Faceoffs Won15-68-1411-90-134-30
Hits2-32-84-10-08-12
Takeaways2-41-21-10-14-8
Giveaways3-24-21-10-08-5
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.962CBJ 1.038. Shooting % plus save %. About 1.000 is neutral.

Game Flow

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

OT 0:31
+10+50-5-10shot attemptsBUFCBJ

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 47%.

OT 0:31
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFCBJ
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. OT 00:31A. Panarin (5) 49% to 0%-49
  2. P3 04:30C. Mittelstadt (1), power play 21% to 48%+27
  3. P2 16:42C. Atkinson (5) 48% to 22%-26
  4. P2 01:34A. Panarin (4) 69% to 47%-22

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 3.47xGCBJ 4.01
OT 20:00
0246123OT

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
OT 0:31
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

4 of 8 winning traits showed up tonight. Win rates are over the full 2018–19 regular season (82 games).

Wins (33)Losses (49, 10 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 73% when yes, 13% when no
No
xG share 50%+ (all situations)
Sabres win 56% when yes, 28% when no
No
Goalie beat expected
Sabres win 62% when yes, 21% when no
Yes
Defensemen combined for 3+ points
Sabres win 67% when yes, 27% when no
Yes
Scored first
Sabres win 62% when yes, 21% when no
No
More high-danger chances (all situations)
Sabres win 57% when yes, 31% when no
No
Better shot quality than opponent
Sabres win 60% when yes, 29% when no
Yes
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 53% when yes, 24% when no

Shift Rhythm

Columbus sent skaters back out on short rest 33 times, well above the typical 23 a game.

BUFCBJTypical game, 2018–19
Pinned time (5v5)1:511:071:18
Shot attempts against while pinned652
Short-rest shifts233323
xG against, skaters 40+ seconds into a shift38%33%

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P14:07 to 4:140:0700
P111:40 to 11:520:1210
P119:59 to 20:000:0100
P21:07 to 1:230:1620
P22:55 to 3:160:2110

When Columbus was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P110:22 to 10:400:1830
P118:05 to 18:070:0200
P24:16 to 4:190:0300
P26:27 to 6:500:23
R. Nash 1:17
10
P215:41 to 15:560:1500
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 2018–19, a pinned team took 28% of the shot attempts; pinned time was 2.9% 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).

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 2018–19 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 0:44. 4 hemmed-in, 3 after a short rest, 0:37 pinned.

Replay
Shift 32
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:46P2avg 0:43P3avg 0:44OTavg 0:310:000:301:001:302:0015101520253032Shift Number

Period averages are even strength only. Typical in 2018–19: 0:46, 0:50 (the long change), 0:48.

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
Pominville–Skinner–Eichel111:030.900.3770.8%20181162.1%12.4%27.0%13795
Berglund–Larsson–Girgensons110:090.570.00100.0%0013476.5%27.3%56.0%11390
Sobotka–Sheary–Reinhart18:570.340.5040.8%0071138.9%-13.9%-7.2%7756
Okposo–Thompson–Mittelstadt14:130.080.6910.5%112918.2%-35.3%-40.0%1716
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Bogosian–Scandella113:490.050.499.9%00101147.6%-4.4%-39.7%7937
McCabe–Ristolainen112:570.871.2740.8%23162242.1%-11.7%-8.4%14171213
Nelson–Dahlin110:530.910.6458.7%11161355.2%4.3%13.5%139117
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1A. PanarinCBJ | C2G 1A 3P
2C. AtkinsonCBJ | RW2G 1A 3P
3P. DuboisCBJ | LW1G 2A 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
#9 J. Eichel (C)
0
2
2
-1
0
3
0.55
-0.5
15:1454.4%+14.2%54.8%+7.3%54.8%50.0%0.985
2.21.8
21:04
#29 J. Pominville (RW)
1
1
2
+1
0
6
0.59
+0.4
12:5655.2%+13.0%52.9%+3.7%54.2%66.7%1.111
1.92.3
18:01
#53 J. Skinner (LW)
1
1
2
+1
0
3
0.20
+0.8
12:4358.5%+17.4%60.6%+15.0%62.5%100.0%1.200
1.32.2
18:53
#19 J. McCabe (D)
0
2
2
-1
0
2
0.05
-0.1
14:1941.4%-9.0%43.6%-11.2%46.9%40.0%0.923
1.21.1
17:27
#21 K. Okposo (RW)
1
0
1
0
2
2
0.21
+0.8
7:3713.6%-42.0%27.8%-27.6%21.4%50.0%1.222
-0.40.4
11:40
#37 C. Mittelstadt (C)
1
0
1
0
0
1
0.06
+0.9
5:3113.4%-40.1%33.3%-20.2%20.0%50.0%1.357
-0.20.6
9:44
#72 T. Thompson (C)
0
1
1
-1
0
3
0.21
-0.2
7:1011.3%-47.5%16.7%-41.2%13.3%33.3%1.318
0.50.3
11:21
#8 C. Nelson (D)
0
1
1
0
0
1
0.04
0.0
10:5555.5%+13.5%51.6%+1.6%54.2%50.0%0.966
0.80.7
12:10
#10 P. Berglund (C)
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.07
-0.1
10:22100.0%+60.5%76.5%+31.2%78.6%
0.90.8
12:54
#17 V. Sobotka (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0.02
0.0
12:4733.8%-16.7%36.0%-19.3%42.9%0.0%0.900
-0.3-0.4
14:35
#22 J. Larsson (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0.04
0.0
11:3667.6%+25.5%63.6%+16.8%61.1%0.0%0.667
0.40.2
15:51
#23 S. Reinhart (C)
0
0
0
-2
0
4
0.44
-0.4
13:0543.2%-4.9%50.0%-0.7%52.2%0.0%0.800
0.70.1
17:16
#28 Z. Girgensons (C)
0
0
0
0
0
4
0.47
-0.5
10:39100.0%+60.5%76.5%+31.2%78.6%
1.20.8
14:43
#43 C. Sheary (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0.02
0.0
13:5750.0%+4.8%50.0%-0.7%52.4%0.0%0.889
0.1-0.1
17:01
#4 Z. Bogosian (D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
-0.1
16:4234.5%-14.1%56.0%+7.3%52.6%1.000
0.30.2
20:39
#6 M. Scandella (D)
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.08
-0.1
17:2528.1%-23.3%48.3%-3.1%40.0%1.000
0.10.2
20:38
#26 R. Dahlin (D)
0
0
0
0
2
1
0.11
-0.1
12:3159.9%+19.7%60.6%+15.0%64.0%50.0%0.934
0.50.3
18:26
#55 R. Ristolainen (D)
0
0
0
-2
2
4
0.21
-0.2
17:0046.0%-1.2%44.7%-10.9%44.4%40.0%0.943
0.1-0.2
23:14
Total
4
8
12
6
38
3.48
11.1

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#35 L. Ullmark3754.0.865-1.0-0.560:27O

Team Stats

BUFCBJ
38Shots on Goal37
10.0%Shooting % (5v5)13.8%
.862Save % (5v5).900
0.962PDO (5v5)1.038
34 (53%)Faceoffs Won30 (47%)
5Power Play Chances3
20%PP%0%
100%PK%80%
1PPG0
6Penalty Minutes10
8Hits12
15Blocked Shots16
8Giveaways5
4Takeaways8

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
01:38GOAL (BUF): Kyle Okposo (3), assists: Tage Thompson, Casey NelsonxG 0.08
08:37GOAL (CBJ): Pierre-Luc Dubois (3), assists: Artemi PanarinxG 0.11
14:11GOAL (BUF): Jeff Skinner (6), assists: Jake McCabe, Jack EichelxG 0.18
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
01:34GOAL (CBJ): Artemi Panarin (4), assists: Pierre-Luc Dubois, Cam AtkinsonxG 0.10
16:42GOAL (CBJ): Cam Atkinson (5), assists: Riley Nash, Zach WerenskixG 0.18
17:13GOAL (CBJ): Cam Atkinson (6), assists: Nick Foligno, Scott HarringtonxG 0.05
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
02:32GOAL (BUF): Jason Pominville (5), assists: Jack Eichel, Jake McCabexG 0.18
04:30GOAL (BUF): Casey Mittelstadt (1), assists: Jason Pominville, Jeff Skinner(PP)xG 0.06
20:00Period end
OT
00:00Period start
00:31GOAL (CBJ): Artemi Panarin (5), assists: Pierre-Luc DuboisxG 0.08
00:31Period end
00:31Game end
vs MTL (Oct 25, 2018)vs CGY (Oct 30, 2018) ›