vs CBJ (Sep 22, 2026) ›

September 21, 2026

PPG Paints Arena | Pittsburgh

BUF 1 – 4 PIT

FINAL

Head-to-Head vs PIT all-time
1ST2ND3RDT
BUF0101
PIT1214
Shots on goal BUF 24, PIT 28
Game Leaders
0.9
GAME SCORE
19:39
TOI (F)
21:55
TOI (D)
.842 (16/19)
SAVE %

Box Score

ON-ICE RATES
Player
G
A
P ▾
+/-
PIM
SOG
ixG
iGAx
On-Ice
Game Score
Special Teams
TOI
On-Ice TOIxGFxGAxGF%xGF% RelCFCACF%CF% RelFF%GF%PDOxGSGSPP ShiftsPP TOIPP SharePK ShiftsPK TOIPK Share
#70 J. Richard (RW)
1
0
1
-1
0
2
0.28
+0.7
12:110.120.2829.1%-9.6%7846.7%+2.5%45.5%–1.000
0.30.9
32:4355.8%00:000.0%
16:02
#77 T. Bordeleau (C)
0
1
1
-1
0
2
0.22
-0.2
11:420.110.1641.2%+5.2%8850.0%+6.6%45.5%–1.000
1.10.9
23:1265.8%00:000.0%
16:57
#73 Z. Metsa (D)
0
1
1
-1
0
0
–
–
15:170.140.6318.3%-30.8%81732.0%-17.3%35.3%–1.000
0.30.4
22:4757.2%21:3042.3%
21:55
#13 M. Peca (C)
0
0
0
-2
0
1
0.12
-0.1
13:450.420.7336.4%-0.9%161650.0%+8.3%47.8%0.0%0.833
0.1-0.1
21:4736.6%21:1334.3%
18:01
#15 J. Danforth (RW)
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.17
-0.2
11:560.370.4047.6%+18.0%121446.2%+2.2%50.0%–1.000
0.30.2
12:4556.5%21:0530.5%
17:32
#20 J. Kulich (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
0.20
-0.2
13:390.080.3020.4%-20.3%71138.9%-7.1%33.3%–1.000
0.10.0
33:0663.7%10:5425.4%
19:39
#27 A. McDonough (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
-0.1
8:270.010.0154.5%+17.9%6366.7%+24.5%60.0%–1.000
0.20.2
31:1525.7%00:000.0%
11:40
#28 L. Valente (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
0.10
-0.1
12:180.370.6037.7%+1.9%16769.6%+33.3%64.7%0.0%0.750
0.90.7
10:3010.3%00:000.0%
14:11
#41 J. Polin (RW)
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0.02
0.0
11:440.130.1644.8%+9.5%91636.0%-11.8%35.0%–1.000
-0.3-0.4
21:3432.2%00:000.0%
14:56
#43 C. Sheary (LW)
0
0
0
0
0
0
–
–
4:430.020.0917.3%-20.6%1516.7%-29.8%20.0%–1.000
-0.2-0.2
20:5217.8%00:000.0%
5:35
#45 R. Fiddler-Schultz (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0.05
-0.1
9:510.070.0750.7%+15.1%9469.2%+28.7%62.5%0.0%0.667
0.50.3
10:268.9%21:3343.7%
13:25
#48 T. Kozak (C)
0
0
0
-2
0
1
0.05
0.0
12:510.200.3437.3%+0.8%142140.0%-7.4%36.0%0.0%0.818
-0.2-0.5
10:258.6%22:0357.7%
17:01
#52 T. Kuntar (C)
0
0
0
-1
0
3
0.15
-0.2
12:380.200.2247.5%+13.6%121741.4%-4.7%38.1%0.0%0.909
0.1-0.2
10:258.6%00:000.0%
14:39
#3 J. Rathbone (D)
0
0
0
0
2
1
0.02
0.0
11:440.030.2112.0%-28.3%61627.3%-22.7%22.2%–1.000
-0.4-0.4
22:0141.4%20:2210.3%
16:22
#33 R. Johnson (D)
0
0
0
-1
0
2
0.02
0.0
16:080.490.0590.0%+73.9%22678.6%+48.9%77.8%0.0%0.667
1.10.9
10:041.4%11:2941.8%
18:42
#44 D. Gilbert (D)
0
0
0
-1
2
0
–
–
17:000.140.8913.7%-49.4%82127.6%-24.8%28.6%0.0%0.909
-0.9-0.9
00:000.0%10:5224.4%
19:08
#57 R. Mrtka (D)
0
0
0
-2
0
2
0.06
-0.1
15:550.490.2368.3%+49.9%221264.7%+31.9%60.9%0.0%0.600
0.80.4
10:289.6%12:0659.2%
19:34
#76 V. Komarov (D)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.01
0.0
13:240.030.426.5%-39.2%61825.0%-26.5%22.2%–1.000
-0.4-0.4
00:000.0%10:5224.4%
17:33
Total
1
2
3
4
24
1.55
1.7
4:523:33

On-ice rates are 5-on-5. Rel compares to the team with that skater off the ice. On-ice xG counts shots on goal only, where a team's xG and a skater's own ixG also count missed shots.

PP TOI and PK TOI are a skater's time on the ice during his team's power plays and penalty kills. PP Share and PK Share are that time as a part of the team's power-play or penalty-kill time (the Total row). PP Shifts and PK Shifts count shifts that began in that state.

GoalieSAGAxGASV%GSAxGSTOI ▾Dec
#34 A. Lyon1931.6.842-1.4-0.640:00–
#92 C. Ellis801.01.000+1.00.817:58–
Game Control
BUFPITBUF sharePIT share
5-on-5
Expected goals0.962.0931.4%68.6%
Shot attempts415144.6%55.4%
Shot attempts, score-adjusted39.254.441.9%58.1%
High-danger chances030.0%100.0%
Power play
Goals, of chances1 of 3 (33%)1 of 2 (50%)
Expected goals0.550.4157.2%42.8%
Shot attempts9660.0%40.0%
High-danger chances1233.3%66.7%
All situations
Expected goals1.553.6429.8%70.2%
Shot attempts526146.0%54.0%
High-danger chances1712.5%87.5%
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 where it publishes one (otherwise the play-by-play's stretches of man-advantage time), 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.

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 Won7-1312-95-624-28
Hits7-134-54-815-26
Takeaways0-22-12-14-4
Giveaways5-62-310-617-15
PDO (5v5): BUF 0.917PIT 1.083. 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 10 minutes, too few for a score-tied view.

P3 20:00
BUF5261PITshot attempts
+9+50-5-9shot 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 47%.

P3 20:00
BUF0%100%PITchance of winning
100%75%50%25%0%Buffalo win chanceBUF
BIGGEST SWINGS
  1. P1 10:27C. Dewar (1) 47% to 28%-19
  2. P2 19:58A. Hayes (1) 21% to 6%-15
  3. P2 12:16B. Rust (1), power play 21% to 8%-13
  4. P2 18:32J. Richard (1), power play 9% to 21%+12

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 is home ice alone.

Expected Goals

Cumulative xG from the game. What is xG?

P3 20:00
BUF1.553.64PITexpected goals
01234123
Most expected goals, by skater
BUFxGGPITxGG
J. Richard0.281E. Soderblom1.101
T. Bordeleau0.220A. Kuzmenko0.410
J. Kulich0.200B. Rust0.391
J. Danforth0.170H. Lapierre0.290
T. Kuntar0.150J. Brazeau0.290

Shot Map

Every shot attempt, to scale.

xG range
Replay
P3 19:42
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Shift Rhythm

Buffalo spent 1:33 at 5v5 on long shifts, well above the typical 0:53 a game, and gave up 4 shot attempts and no goals in that time.

T. Kuntar was out for 0:55 of it, the most on the team.

BUFPITTypical game, 2025–26
Time on long shifts (5v5)1:330:310:53
Shot attempts against in that time401

Goals and shift length

How long the scored-on skaters had been on the ice.

PeriodClockScored byPast 1:00Longest
P110:27PIT0 of 5R. Mrtka 0:52
P212:16PIT PP0 of 3J. Danforth 0:18
P218:32BUF PP0 of 4C. Dewar 0:25
P219:58PIT0 of 5D. Gilbert 0:44

When Buffalo was on long shifts

PeriodClockPast 1:00Skaters (unbroken play)Attempts againstGA
P27:40 to 8:020:2220
P29:58 to 10:160:18
M. Peca 1:18
00
P38:21 to 8:480:2720
How this is measured

Long shift. A skater who stepped on at even strength and stayed out for 1:00 or more of unbroken play, mostly at even strength. 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. A team is on long shifts at 5v5 when 3 or more of its skaters are past that minute, and only the time past the minute counts: the first minute plays like any other stretch of the game, while past it the play tilts hard toward the end the team is defending (in 2025–26, a team on long shifts took 24% of the shot attempts in that time, which was 1.9% of all 5v5 play). Time on long shifts is seconds on the clock, not each skater's seconds added up.

Goals. Each goal lists the skaters it was scored on and how long each had been out, with the same unbroken play clock. Power-play goals count too, though a penalty kill unit runs long by design. Empty-net and shootout goals are left out. Stretches under 0:15 with no shot attempt or goal against are not listed, though their time is in the totals.

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. This season has no measured row yet, so 2025–26 stands in. A sentence at the top only appears when time on long shifts is at least 0:30 and among the highest fifth of those, or when a 5v5 goal went in with 3 or more of the scored-on team's skaters past the minute.

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 on a long shift 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 0:43. 1 was a long shift.

Replay
Shift 25
Long shiftGoal forGoal againstPenalty takenPower playPenalty killPeriod average and middle half of shifts (even strength)
P1avg 0:40P2avg 0:31P3avg 1:040:000:301:001:302:002:301510152025Shift Number

Period averages are even strength only. Typical in 2025–26: 0:45, 0:50 (the long change), 0:47.

Jiri Kulich by period

On ice, all situations. xG counts shots on goal. EV Avg counts shifts that started at even strength.

PeriodShiftsAvgEV AvgTOIxGFxGACFCASOGSOGAGFGA
P1100:390:406:280.090.07353300
P2100:360:316:000.210.12554110
P351:041:045:180.280.12632100
Game250:430:4217:460.580.3014139510

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. On-ice xG counts shots on goal only, where a team's xG and a skater's own ixG also count missed shots.
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
LineGPTOI ▾xGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Kuntar–Kozak–Polin18:230.130.1055.1%0071138.9%-10.7%16.9%5836
Danforth–Bordeleau–Kulich15:220.050.1232.0%004450.0%1.7%-7.7%2321
Peca–Richard–Valente15:000.100.1637.4%005271.4%24.1%-2.0%4131
Sheary–Kulich–Richard14:010.020.0721.1%001420.0%-29.3%-18.7%1312
McDonough–Fiddler-Schultz–Valente13:360.010.00100.0%0040100.0%53.0%60.8%3010
Peca–Danforth–Bordeleau12:530.060.00100.0%002166.7%18.7%61.8%2110
Pageof 1
Defense Pairs
LineGPTOI ▾xGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Johnson–Mrtka114:200.490.0590.0%0121580.8%38.9%60.2%134103
Gilbert–Metsa112:480.140.5221.5%0071236.8%-13.2%-22.0%5937
Rathbone–Komarov110:000.030.1023.0%0061233.3%-17.1%-16.9%41127
Pageof 1

Three Stars

1B. RustPIT | RW1G 2A 3P
2A. HayesPIT | RW1G 0A 1P
3H. LapierrePIT | C0G 1A 1P

Team Stats

BUFPIT
24Shots on Goal28
0.0%Shooting % (5v5)8.3%
.917Save % (5v5)1.000
0.917PDO (5v5)1.083
24 (46%)Faceoffs Won28 (54%)
3Power Play Chances2
33%PP%50%
50%PK%67%
1PPG1
4Penalty Minutes6
15Hits26
15Blocked Shots14
17Giveaways15
4Takeaways4

Full Game Log

1ST
00:00Period start
10:27GOAL (PIT): Connor Dewar (1), assists: Bryan Rust, Andrei KuzmenkoxG 0.04
20:00Period end
2ND
00:00Period start
12:16GOAL (PIT): Bryan Rust (1), assists: Hendrix Lapierre, Kris Letang(PP)xG 0.16
18:32GOAL (BUF): Jake Richard (1), assists: Thomas Bordeleau, Zach Metsa(PP)xG 0.07
19:58GOAL (PIT): Avery Hayes (1), unassistedxG 0.06
20:00Period end
3RD
00:00Period start
18:13GOAL (PIT): Elmer Soderblom (1), assists: Bryan Rust, Connor Dewar(EN)xG 0.81
20:00Period end
20:00Game end
vs CBJ (Sep 22, 2026) ›