vs PHI (Apr 16, 2022)@ NJD (Apr 21, 2022) ›

April 17, 2022

Wells Fargo Center | Philadelphia

BUF 53 PHI

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs PHI all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
BUF2215
PHI1113
Shots on goal BUF 40, PHI 35W D. TokarskiL F. Sandstrom
Summary

Buffalo had the better expected goals in all situations and won 5-3.

FINISHING
Buffalo 5 goals on 4.74 xG
PHI 3 goals on 4.36 xG
IN NET
Buffalo D. Tokarski .914 (+1.4 GSAx)
PHI F. Sandstrom .897 (+0.1 GSAx)
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 2 of 2
PHI 0 of 2
TURNING POINT
V. Olofsson, power play goal (P2 9:43), Sabres win chance rises from 49% to 73%
BEST LINE
Girgensons–Hinostroza–Bjork, 74.7% of 5v5 xG and 1-0 on goals
BEST PAIR
Samuelsson–Dahlin, 73.0% of 5v5 xG and 2-0 on goals
WIN DNA
6 of 8 winning traits
SHIFTS
Philadelphia pinned 1:39 at 5v5 (typical 0:54)
Game Leaders
V. Olofsson
2 (2G)
POINTS
R. Dahlin
2.1
GAME SCORE
T. Thompson
18:21
TOI (F)
M. Samuelsson
26:05
TOI (D)
D. Tokarski
.914 (32/35)
SAVE %
Game Control
BUFPHIBUF sharePHI share
5-on-5
Expected goals3.583.9947.3%52.7%
Shot attempts614955.5%44.5%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted67.045.359.7%40.3%
High-danger chances91047.4%52.6%
Power play
Goals, of chances2 of 2 (100%)0 of 2 (0%)
Expected goals0.380.2065.5%34.5%
Shot attempts7558.3%41.7%
High-danger chances10100.0%0.0%
Shorthanded expected goals0.150.00100.0%0.0%
All situations
Expected goals4.744.3652.1%47.9%
Shot attempts705954.3%45.7%
High-danger chances121054.5%45.5%

PHI 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.

Girgensons–Hinostroza–BjorkBEST LINE

74.7% of xG (0.59 to 0.20), 1-0 on goals and 16-6 on attempts in 12:13 together. Bjork scored with the line out.

Samuelsson–DahlinBEST D PAIR

73.0% of xG (1.51 to 0.56), 2-0 on goals and 26-18 on attempts in 18:17 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 Won9-166-1012-927-35
Hits11-1313-77-931-29
Takeaways2-22-33-27-7
Giveaways4-61-53-48-15
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.957PHI 1.043. 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
+20+100-10-20shot 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 49%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFPHI
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P2 09:43V. Olofsson (20), power play 49% to 73%+24
  2. P2 01:20N. Cates (3) 70% to 49%-21
  3. P1 17:34A. Bjork (5) 49% to 69%+20
  4. P1 01:16K. Hayes (9) 49% to 32%-17

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 4.74xGPHI 4.36
P3 20:00
0246123

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
P3 19:59
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 2021–22 regular season (82 games).

Wins (32)Losses (50, 11 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 61% when yes, 17% when no
Yes
xG share 50%+ (all situations)
Sabres win 69% when yes, 23% when no
Yes
Goalie beat expected
Sabres win 61% when yes, 20% when no
Yes
Defensemen combined for 3+ points
Sabres win 61% when yes, 31% when no
No
Scored first
Sabres win 56% when yes, 22% when no
Yes
More high-danger chances (all situations)
Sabres win 66% when yes, 22% when no
No
Better shot quality than opponent
Sabres win 59% when yes, 25% when no
Yes
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 52% when yes, 22% when no

Shift Rhythm

Philadelphia was pinned for 1:39 at 5v5, well above the typical 0:54 a game, and gave up 4 shot attempts in that time.

BUFPHITypical game, 2021–22
Pinned time (5v5)1:171:390:54
Shot attempts against while pinned342
Short-rest shifts151921
xG against, skaters 40+ seconds into a shift34%26%

When Philadelphia was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P19:36 to 9:390:0300
P23:08 to 3:310:2310
P212:10 to 12:360:2620
P214:04 to 14:070:0300
P218:52 to 19:000:0800

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P17:34 to 7:430:0910
P19:36 to 9:410:0500
P110:51 to 10:560:0500
P111:02 to 11:090:0700
P23:15 to 3:260:1100
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 2021–22, a pinned team took 25% of the shot attempts; pinned time was 2.1% 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 2021–22 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.

28 shifts, averaging 0:56. 6 hemmed-in, 3 after a short rest, 0:26 pinned.

Replay
Shift 28
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:51P2avg 1:04P3avg 0:570:000:301:001:302:00151015202528Shift Number

Period averages are even strength only. Typical in 2021–22: 0:45, 0:49 (the long change), 0:47.

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
Girgensons–Hinostroza–Bjork112:130.590.2074.7%1016672.7%19.2%32.9%9372
Tuch–Mittelstadt–Krebs111:460.700.1681.2%00111444.0%-12.9%40.2%10988
Skinner–Olofsson–Thompson110:210.781.9728.3%13131448.1%-8.4%-20.8%101279
Okposo–Asplund–Cozens19:470.160.5921.6%00111150.0%-6.1%-24.0%8967
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Samuelsson–Dahlin118:171.510.5673.0%20261859.1%4.6%35.4%2212169
Jokiharju–Power117:210.652.3521.7%03192147.5%-9.7%-30.3%12191017
Fitzgerald–Bryson110:170.340.0489.0%0011664.7%10.0%46.5%8461
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1V. OlofssonBUF | LW2G 0A 2P
2D. TokarskiBUF | G3.00 GAA, .914 SV%
3K. HayesPHI | C1G 1A 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
#19 P. Krebs (C)
0
2
2
0
0
1
0.00
0.0
13:1573.7%+35.9%48.3%-9.7%56.5%1.000
1.21.2
15:11
#53 J. Skinner (LW)
0
2
2
-1
0
5
0.79
-0.8
14:1832.2%-26.3%55.6%+0.2%54.8%25.0%0.818
2.41.7
16:12
#71 V. Olofsson (LW)
2
0
2
-1
0
4
0.28
+1.7
12:2030.0%-29.2%50.0%-7.5%48.0%25.0%0.811
0.31.5
15:08
#72 T. Thompson (C)
2
0
2
-1
0
4
1.03
+1.0
13:5631.3%-26.4%53.1%-3.3%51.9%25.0%0.811
1.21.7
18:21
#26 R. Dahlin (D)
0
2
2
+3
0
0
19:0467.1%+38.1%57.8%+3.9%62.9%100.0%1.125
1.92.1
24:07
#24 D. Cozens (C)
0
1
1
0
0
3
0.29
-0.3
10:5021.6%-25.8%52.2%-4.1%47.1%1.000
1.21.1
14:14
#96 A. Bjork (LW)
1
0
1
+1
0
3
0.54
+0.5
14:0476.0%+37.4%75.0%+25.0%78.6%100.0%1.125
1.31.7
14:04
#23 M. Samuelsson (D)
0
1
1
+3
0
4
0.51
-0.5
22:5673.0%+45.4%59.2%+6.7%66.7%100.0%1.125
2.01.8
26:05
#21 K. Okposo (RW)
0
0
0
0
2
2
0.04
0.0
10:3221.6%-25.8%50.0%-6.8%47.1%1.000
0.00.0
13:28
#28 Z. Girgensons (C)
0
0
0
+1
0
3
0.15
-0.2
13:5269.1%+30.5%69.2%+18.0%68.8%100.0%1.111
0.90.9
15:00
#29 V. Hinostroza (C)
0
0
0
+1
2
1
0.12
-0.1
13:4074.7%+35.6%75.0%+25.0%78.6%100.0%1.143
0.70.7
14:10
#37 C. Mittelstadt (C)
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.26
-0.3
13:2971.9%+33.6%42.9%-16.9%47.6%1.000
0.20.0
15:29
#74 R. Asplund (C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
9:5921.6%-25.8%50.0%-6.8%47.1%1.000
-0.10.0
10:46
#89 A. Tuch (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
3
0.64
-0.6
15:2372.4%+35.9%50.0%-7.9%55.6%1.000
0.80.3
16:34
#10 H. Jokiharju (D)
0
0
0
-3
0
3
0.05
0.0
18:5321.6%-48.7%50.0%-9.1%42.9%0.0%0.833
0.0-0.2
21:25
#25 O. Power (D)
0
0
0
-3
0
1
0.02
0.0
20:2521.7%-47.2%48.8%-10.9%40.6%0.0%0.824
0.0-0.2
22:09
#45 C. Fitzgerald (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.01
0.0
11:2655.4%+12.8%61.9%+8.0%62.5%1.000
0.40.4
11:47
#78 J. Bryson (D)
0
0
0
0
0
0
11:2889.0%+48.1%61.1%+6.8%66.7%1.000
0.20.2
11:50
Total
5
8
13
4
40
4.74
14.9

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#31 D. Tokarski3534.4.914+1.41.060:00W

Team Stats

BUFPHI
40Shots on Goal35
6.1%Shooting % (5v5)10.3%
.897Save % (5v5).939
0.957PDO (5v5)1.043
27 (44%)Faceoffs Won35 (56%)
2Power Play Chances2
100%PP%0%
100%PK%0%
2PPG0
4Penalty Minutes4
31Hits29
14Blocked Shots16
8Giveaways15
7Takeaways7

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
01:16GOAL (PHI): Kevin Hayes (9), assists: Noah Cates, Ivan ProvorovxG 0.02
08:36GOAL (BUF): Victor Olofsson (19), assists: Rasmus Dahlin, Peyton Krebs(PP)xG 0.06
17:34GOAL (BUF): Anders Bjork (5), assists: Rasmus DahlinxG 0.21
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
01:20GOAL (PHI): Noah Cates (3), assists: Travis Konecny, Kevin HayesxG 0.94
09:43GOAL (BUF): Victor Olofsson (20), assists: Dylan Cozens, Peyton Krebs(PP)xG 0.04
14:22GOAL (BUF): Tage Thompson (35), assists: Jeff SkinnerxG 0.25
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
14:07GOAL (PHI): Zack MacEwen (3), assists: Oskar Lindblom, Travis SanheimxG 0.37
19:28GOAL (BUF): Tage Thompson (36), assists: Jeff Skinner, Mattias Samuelsson(EN)xG 0.63
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs PHI (Apr 16, 2022)@ NJD (Apr 21, 2022) ›