@ VAN (Jan 21, 2025)@ EDM (Jan 25, 2025) ›

January 23, 2025

Scotiabank Saddledome | Calgary

BUF 25 CGY

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs CGY all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
BUF0202
CGY1135
Shots on goal BUF 34, CGY 26W D. WolfL U. Luukkonen
Summary

CGY had the better expected goals in all situations and won 5-2.

FINISHING
Buffalo 2 goals on 3.74 xG
CGY 5 goals on 4.81 xG
IN NET
Buffalo U. Luukkonen .875 (-0.1 GSAx)
CGY D. Wolf .941 (+1.7 GSAx)
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 0 of 6
CGY 0 of 2
TURNING POINT
J. Pelletier goal (P3 3:29), Sabres win chance drops from 48% to 18%
BEST LINE
Thompson–Peterka–Kulich, 68.2% of 5v5 xG and 1-0 on goals
BEST PAIR
Dahlin–Byram, 100.0% of 5v5 xG
WIN DNA
2 of 8 winning traits
SHIFTS
Buffalo scored while Calgary was pinned
Game Leaders
M. Samuelsson
2 (1G-1A)
POINTS
M. Samuelsson
2.2
GAME SCORE
A. Tuch
4
SHOTS
P. Krebs
0.64
XG
J. Peterka
21:19
TOI (F)
R. Dahlin
24:30
TOI (D)
U. Luukkonen
.875 (21/24)
SAVE %
Game Control
BUFCGYBUF shareCGY share
5-on-5
Expected goals2.621.9857.0%43.0%
Shot attempts584059.2%40.8%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted57.441.458.1%41.9%
High-danger chances6460.0%40.0%
Power play
Goals, of chances0 of 6 (0%)0 of 2 (0%)
Expected goals0.730.1186.5%13.5%
Shot attempts11284.6%15.4%
High-danger chances10100.0%0.0%
Shorthanded expected goals0.000.380.0%100.0%
All situations
Expected goals3.744.8143.7%56.3%
Shot attempts775558.3%41.7%
High-danger chances9852.9%47.1%

The Sabres had the better 5-on-5 chances, CGY 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.

Thompson–Peterka–KulichBEST LINE

68.2% of xG (0.23 to 0.11), 1-0 on goals and 11-10 on attempts in 10:33 together. Thompson scored with the line out. Few chances either way.

Dahlin–ByramBEST D PAIR

100.0% of xG (0.25 to 0.00), 14-3 on attempts in 10:42 together. Few chances either way.

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFCGY

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-CGY.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won13-713-1215-741-26
Hits8-88-64-520-19
Takeaways0-21-11-22-5
Giveaways5-64-55-614-17
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.949CGY 1.051. 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
+24+120-12-24shot attemptsBUFCGY

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 46%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFCGY
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P3 03:29J. Pelletier (4) 48% to 18%-30
  2. P2 10:31N. Kadri (16) 72% to 47%-25
  3. P2 07:18T. Thompson (22) 47% to 70%+23
  4. P2 02:50M. Samuelsson (3) 26% to 47%+21

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 3.74xGCGY 4.81
P3 20:00
0246123

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
P3 19:54
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

2 of 8 winning traits showed up tonight. Win rates are over the full 2024–25 regular season (82 games).

Wins (36)Losses (46, 7 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 64% when yes, 19% when no
No
xG share 50%+ (all situations)
Sabres win 71% when yes, 25% when no
No
Goalie beat expected
Sabres win 60% when yes, 29% when no
Yes
Defensemen combined for 3+ points
Sabres win 68% when yes, 27% when no
No
Scored first
Sabres win 56% when yes, 30% when no
Yes
More high-danger chances (all situations)
Sabres win 63% when yes, 32% when no
No
Better shot quality than opponent
Sabres win 61% when yes, 30% when no
No
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 59% when yes, 29% when no

Shift Rhythm

Buffalo scored while Calgary was pinned.

Calgary sent skaters back out on short rest 38 times, well above the typical 27 a game.

BUFCGYTypical game, 2024–25
Pinned time (5v5)0:150:200:43
Shot attempts against while pinned021
Short-rest shifts333827
xG against, skaters 40+ seconds into a shift28%40%

When Calgary was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P22:32 to 2:500:1821
P210:14 to 10:160:02
K. Bahl 1:02
00

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P119:07 to 19:100:0300
P29:18 to 9:260:0800
P39:53 to 9:570:04
A. Tuch 1:04
00
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 2024–25, a pinned team took 22% of the shot attempts; pinned time was 1.6% 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 2024–25 regular season, counting both teams (156 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.

30 shifts, averaging 0:43. 1 hemmed-in, 3 after a short rest, 0:01 pinned.

Replay
Shift 30
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:37P2avg 0:47P3avg 0:410:000:301:001:302:00151015202530Shift Number

Period averages are even strength only. Typical in 2024–25: 0:44, 0:48 (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
Thompson–Peterka–Kulich110:330.230.1168.2%10111052.4%-7.6%21.8%9653
Krebs–Quinn–Benson110:190.440.2861.7%0019967.9%10.2%16.5%146105
Tuch–Cozens–Kozak17:140.100.1836.1%0013861.9%3.0%-13.5%10654
Lafferty–Malenstyn–Cozens12:090.050.00100.0%107277.8%19.5%52.2%5220
Lafferty–Malenstyn–Kozak12:000.010.00100.0%0030100.0%41.5%51.6%2020
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Dahlin–Byram110:420.250.00100.0%0014382.4%25.4%55.5%9170
Samuelsson–Power17:410.150.1647.6%018753.3%-6.4%-1.0%5653
Clifton–Gilbert16:570.020.1710.8%005935.7%-25.3%-39.9%5533
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1J. PelletierCGY | LW1G 1A 2P
2J. HuberdeauCGY | C1G 2A 3P
3D. WolfCGY | G2.00 GAA, .941 SV%

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
#23 M. Samuelsson (D)
1
1
2
+1
0
2
0.02
+1.0
15:2060.4%+22.6%61.8%+4.0%60.7%66.7%0.982
1.32.2
17:34
#72 T. Thompson (C)
1
0
1
-2
0
1
0.32
+0.7
14:3051.3%+3.7%46.9%-18.3%50.0%50.0%0.943
0.20.7
21:03
#77 J. Peterka (RW)
0
1
1
-2
0
3
0.18
-0.2
14:5558.7%+13.2%44.4%-20.3%52.6%50.0%0.917
0.80.6
21:19
#81 S. Lafferty (C)
0
1
1
0
2
1
0.10
-0.1
6:2923.8%-29.7%73.3%+16.7%66.7%50.0%0.700
0.90.8
7:14
#10 H. Jokiharju (D)
0
1
1
0
0
0
0.03
0.0
10:3353.4%+6.7%65.7%+10.2%68.0%50.0%0.925
1.31.3
12:53
#9 Z. Benson (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
0.17
-0.2
13:4757.1%+15.3%62.5%+4.9%62.5%1.000
0.70.6
17:21
#19 P. Krebs (C)
0
0
0
-2
5
2
0.64
-0.6
14:2050.4%+3.8%61.1%+3.0%65.4%1.000
1.20.7
17:37
#20 J. Kulich (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.49
-0.5
13:0052.2%+4.8%48.0%-15.0%50.0%50.0%0.950
0.60.2
19:07
#22 J. Quinn (RW)
0
0
0
-2
2
3
0.29
-0.3
12:4161.7%+22.3%66.7%+10.8%70.0%1.000
0.90.6
18:56
#24 D. Cozens (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.30
-0.3
13:3638.9%-12.4%61.8%+4.0%60.0%50.0%0.943
0.70.5
19:57
#29 B. Malenstyn (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.25
-0.2
6:3223.8%-29.7%75.0%+18.9%66.7%50.0%0.700
1.00.9
8:08
#48 T. Kozak (C)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.06
-0.1
12:0038.3%-12.3%61.5%+3.2%63.2%1.000
0.70.6
13:04
#89 A. Tuch (RW)
0
0
0
-2
0
4
0.61
-0.6
10:3836.1%-14.8%61.9%+3.5%62.5%1.000
1.00.5
17:58
#4 B. Byram (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
0.11
-0.1
16:5640.2%-13.0%53.1%-9.0%50.0%1.000
0.40.4
21:30
#8 D. Gilbert (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
0.00
0.0
7:1420.0%-34.0%41.2%-21.8%50.0%0.0%0.750
0.0-0.1
7:18
#25 O. Power (D)
0
0
0
-2
0
3
0.03
0.0
13:1451.6%+3.8%58.6%-0.8%57.1%0.0%0.750
0.60.4
20:12
#26 R. Dahlin (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
0.14
-0.1
16:1075.7%+40.2%78.1%+28.1%81.0%100.0%1.091
1.41.4
24:30
#75 C. Clifton (D)
0
0
0
0
2
0
9:055.5%-54.2%35.3%-28.9%46.2%1.000
-0.4-0.3
9:22
Total
2
4
6
11
34
3.74
12.1

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#1 U. Luukkonen2432.9.875-0.1-0.159:06L

Team Stats

BUFCGY
34Shots on Goal26
7.4%Shooting % (5v5)12.5%
.875Save % (5v5).926
0.949PDO (5v5)1.051
41 (61%)Faceoffs Won26 (39%)
6Power Play Chances2
0%PP%0%
100%PK%100%
0PPG0
11Penalty Minutes29
20Hits19
14Blocked Shots19
14Giveaways17
2Takeaways5

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
12:00GOAL (CGY): Jonathan Huberdeau (19), assists: Brayden Pachal(SH)xG 0.22
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
02:50GOAL (BUF): Mattias Samuelsson (3), assists: Henri Jokiharju, Sam LaffertyxG 0.01
07:18GOAL (BUF): Tage Thompson (22), assists: Mattias Samuelsson, JJ PeterkaxG 0.07
10:31GOAL (CGY): Nazem Kadri (16), assists: Jonathan Huberdeau, Jakob PelletierxG 0.06
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
03:29GOAL (CGY): Jakob Pelletier (4), assists: Brayden Pachal, Nazem KadrixG 0.10
17:15GOAL (CGY): Yegor Sharangovich (9), assists: Jonathan Huberdeau, Nazem Kadri(EN)xG 0.88
17:52GOAL (CGY): Mikael Backlund (10), assists: Blake Coleman(EN)xG 0.97
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
@ VAN (Jan 21, 2025)@ EDM (Jan 25, 2025) ›