vs CAR (Nov 23, 2025)vs NJD (Nov 28, 2025) ›

November 26, 2025

PPG Paints Arena | Pittsburgh

BUF 24 PIT

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs PIT all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
BUF0022
PIT1034
Shots on goal BUF 31, PIT 19W T. JarryL U. Luukkonen
Summary

Buffalo had the better expected goals in all situations and lost 2-4.

FINISHING
Buffalo 2 goals on 2.91 xG
PIT 4 goals on 2.58 xG
IN NET
Buffalo U. Luukkonen .833 (-1.4 GSAx)
PIT T. Jarry .935 (+0.9 GSAx)
POWER PLAY
Buffalo 0 of 0
PIT 0 of 1
TURNING POINT
B. Rust goal (P3 7:51), Sabres win chance drops from 46% to 15%
BEST LINE
Zucker–McLeod–Quinn, 72.6% of 5v5 xG and 2-0 on goals
BEST PAIR
Samuelsson–Dahlin, 94.9% of 5v5 xG and 1-0 on goals
WIN DNA
3 of 8 winning traits
SHIFTS
Buffalo pinned 2:56 at 5v5 (typical 0:53), a goal against
Game Leaders
J. Zucker
2 (1G-1A)
POINTS
J. Quinn
2.5
GAME SCORE
J. Quinn
0.58
XG
J. Quinn
18:39
TOI (F)
M. Samuelsson
27:47
TOI (D)
U. Luukkonen
.833 (15/18)
SAVE %
Game Control
BUFPITBUF sharePIT share
5-on-5
Expected goals2.611.4863.8%36.2%
Shot attempts544156.8%43.2%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted50.642.554.3%45.7%
High-danger chances5362.5%37.5%
Power play
Goals, of chances0 of 00 of 1 (0%)
Expected goals0.000.150.0%100.0%
Shot attempts040.0%100.0%
All situations
Expected goals2.912.5853.0%47.0%
Shot attempts604656.6%43.4%
High-danger chances5455.6%44.4%
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.

Zucker–McLeod–QuinnBEST LINE

72.6% of xG (0.67 to 0.25), 2-0 on goals and 20-10 on attempts in 14:11 together. Zucker and Quinn scored 2 goals with the line out.

Samuelsson–DahlinBEST D PAIR

94.9% of xG (1.11 to 0.06), 1-0 on goals and 26-11 on attempts in 19:29 together.

Stats by Period

All situations, by period.

BUFPIT

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-PIT.
 1ST2ND3RDTotal
Faceoffs Won4-66-55-1015-21
Hits5-99-37-521-17
Takeaways3-32-23-18-6
Giveaways8-73-34-415-14
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.898PIT 1.102. Shooting % plus save %. About 1.000 is neutral.

Game Flow

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

Tied for only 18 minutes, too few for a score-tied view.

P3 20:00
+17+90-9-17shot attemptsBUFPIT

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 43%.

P3 20:00
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUFPIT
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P3 07:51B. Rust (6) 46% to 15%-31
  2. P3 07:20J. Zucker (6) 15% to 46%+31
  3. P1 17:09M. Dumba (1) 44% to 25%-19
  4. P3 12:34K. Hayes (1) 11% to 1%-10

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 2.91xGPIT 2.58
P3 20:00
0123123

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
P3 19:56
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

3 of 8 winning traits showed up tonight. Win rates are over the full 2025–26 regular season (82 games).

Wins (50)Losses (32, 9 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 82% when yes, 28% when no
Yes
xG share 50%+ (all situations)
Sabres win 77% when yes, 38% when no
No
Goalie beat expected
Sabres win 80% when yes, 38% when no
No
Defensemen combined for 3+ points
Sabres win 76% when yes, 45% when no
No
Scored first
Sabres win 82% when yes, 37% when no
Yes
More high-danger chances (all situations)
Sabres win 71% when yes, 50% when no
Yes
Better shot quality than opponent
Sabres win 70% when yes, 49% when no
No
Depth forward scored
Sabres win 77% when yes, 44% when no

Shift Rhythm

Buffalo was pinned for 2:56 at 5v5, well above the typical 0:53 a game, and gave up 5 shot attempts and a goal in that time.

M. Samuelsson was out for 1:44 of it, the most on the team.

Pittsburgh was pinned for 1:56 at 5v5, well above the typical 0:53 a game, and gave up 5 shot attempts in that time.

51% of the xG against Pittsburgh came with its skaters 40 seconds or more into a shift, well above the typical 35%.

BUFPITTypical game, 2025–26
Pinned time (5v5)2:561:560:53
Shot attempts against while pinned551
Short-rest shifts12022
xG against, skaters 40+ seconds into a shift46%51%35%

When Buffalo was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P16:42 to 7:080:26
A. Tuch 1:26
J. Doan 1:26
00
P18:09 to 8:100:0100
P116:59 to 17:090:1011
P22:44 to 2:560:1210
P24:33 to 4:550:2200

When Pittsburgh was pinned

PeriodClockPinnedSkaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P16:42 to 6:480:06
B. Rust 1:06
00
P25:32 to 5:360:0410
P27:47 to 7:480:01
R. Shea 1:01
00
P28:50 to 9:120:2200
P216:03 to 16:160:1300
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 2025–26, a pinned team took 24% of the shot attempts; pinned time was 1.9% 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 2025–26 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.

25 shifts, averaging 1:07. 10 hemmed-in, 2 after a short rest, 1:44 pinned.

Replay
Shift 25
Hemmed-in shiftShort rest before itGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:54P2avg 1:41P3avg 1:020:001:002:003:004:001510152025Shift Number

Period averages are even strength only. Typical in 2025–26: 0:45, 0:50 (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
Zucker–McLeod–Quinn114:110.670.2572.6%20201066.7%11.0%14.9%19684
Malenstyn–Krebs–Dunne16:590.110.1640.9%0012285.7%30.5%-20.1%9161
Tuch–Thompson–Benson16:550.380.1079.2%016842.9%-15.7%20.8%4533
Tuch–Thompson–Doan16:500.000.180.0%00030.0%-58.4%-62.0%0302
Kozak–Ostlund–Benson15:330.000.150.0%00050.0%-59.0%-61.6%0402
Doan–Kozak–Ostlund15:120.440.00100.0%0010376.9%20.9%43.2%8070
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Samuelsson–Dahlin119:291.110.0694.9%10261170.3%16.0%43.5%235152
Timmins–Byram112:490.360.4147.0%1271335.0%-25.1%-15.1%71157
Bryson–Power19:230.250.1267.1%0110471.4%15.1%7.5%8252
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1K. HayesPIT | RW1G 0A 1P
2J. QuinnBUF | RW1G 1A 2P
3T. JarryPIT | G2.00 GAA, .935 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
#17 J. Zucker (LW)
1
1
2
+1
0
4
0.51
+0.5
18:0867.2%+10.8%63.6%+10.4%70.4%100.0%1.250
1.92.5
18:28
#22 J. Quinn (RW)
1
1
2
+1
0
2
0.58
+0.4
17:5270.1%+16.1%65.7%+14.0%71.4%100.0%1.222
2.02.5
18:39
#71 R. McLeod (C)
0
1
1
+1
0
1
0.11
-0.1
16:3172.6%+18.3%64.5%+11.4%73.1%100.0%1.250
1.21.4
18:01
#23 M. Samuelsson (D)
0
1
1
+1
0
5
0.26
-0.3
26:3877.9%+35.4%63.0%+12.0%75.0%100.0%1.063
2.01.9
27:47
#6 Z. Benson (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.08
-0.1
15:4363.0%+4.0%41.7%-20.3%37.5%0.0%0.833
0.0-0.3
16:09
#19 P. Krebs (C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.0
9:1031.9%-32.0%75.0%+21.8%81.8%1.000
0.40.4
9:10
#29 B. Malenstyn (LW)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.00
0.0
9:1935.8%-27.2%66.7%+12.1%75.0%0.0%0.500
0.40.3
9:44
#44 J. Dunne (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
0.13
-0.1
8:1135.8%-27.2%80.0%+27.5%81.8%0.0%0.500
0.70.5
8:11
#48 T. Kozak (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
14:5661.1%+1.4%45.8%-14.7%53.3%0.0%0.750
0.1-0.1
15:22
#72 T. Thompson (C)
0
0
0
-3
0
2
0.17
-0.2
18:1353.6%-9.3%37.5%-25.9%31.3%0.0%0.714
0.0-0.4
18:33
#86 N. Ostlund (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.22
-0.2
13:2765.4%+7.2%50.0%-9.2%58.8%0.0%0.750
0.3-0.1
13:27
#89 A. Tuch (RW)
0
0
0
-2
0
2
0.36
-0.4
16:1254.8%-7.2%38.1%-24.1%40.0%0.0%0.833
0.2-0.2
17:40
#91 J. Doan (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.12
-0.1
16:0257.7%-3.2%57.1%+0.4%64.3%0.0%0.750
0.40.1
16:02
#4 B. Byram (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
0.01
0.0
19:2145.1%-21.4%40.7%-22.5%40.9%33.3%0.921
-0.1-0.2
20:13
#21 C. Timmins (D)
0
0
0
-1
2
1
0.14
-0.1
14:0442.7%-24.5%37.5%-25.9%36.8%33.3%0.950
-0.2-0.4
14:06
#25 O. Power (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.02
0.0
18:1530.4%-42.2%57.1%+0.4%63.2%0.0%0.833
0.20.1
19:25
#26 R. Dahlin (D)
0
0
0
0
0
5
0.19
-0.2
23:5183.3%+42.6%68.2%+21.1%78.8%100.0%1.067
1.51.4
25:06
#78 J. Bryson (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
12:3453.4%-8.0%65.0%+10.3%66.7%0.0%0.750
0.30.2
12:34
Total
2
4
6
2
31
2.91
9.4

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

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOIDec
#1 U. Luukkonen1831.6.833-1.4-0.759:23L

Team Stats

BUFPIT
31Shots on Goal19
7.4%Shooting % (5v5)17.6%
.824Save % (5v5).926
0.898PDO (5v5)1.102
15 (42%)Faceoffs Won21 (58%)
0Power Play Chances1
PP%0%
100%PK%
0PPG0
2Penalty Minutes0
21Hits17
15Blocked Shots10
15Giveaways14
8Takeaways6

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
17:09GOAL (PIT): Mathew Dumba (1), unassistedxG 0.04
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
07:20GOAL (BUF): Jason Zucker (6), assists: Jack Quinn, Ryan McLeodxG 0.10
07:51GOAL (PIT): Bryan Rust (6), assists: Ryan SheaxG 0.08
12:34GOAL (PIT): Kevin Hayes (1), assists: Erik Karlsson, Parker WotherspoonxG 0.08
15:42GOAL (BUF): Jack Quinn (6), assists: Jason Zucker, Mattias SamuelssonxG 0.23
19:02GOAL (PIT): Connor Dewar (5), assists: Danton Heinen, Ryan Shea(EN)xG 0.95
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs CAR (Nov 23, 2025)vs NJD (Nov 28, 2025) ›