Team Stats

2025–26 Playoffs

Coach: Lindy Ruff
Total Players: 27
Related2025–26 game resultsRound 1 vs BOS breakdownRound 2 vs MTL breakdown
Season Summary

7-6 in the playoffs, a +4 goal differential.

BEST LINE
Tuch–McLeod–Doan, 91.1% of 5v5 xG and 1-0 on goals
BEST PAIR
Dahlin–Power, 85.3% of 5v5 xG and 2-0 on goals
PENALTIES
Drew 83, took 75 (+8)
Team Totals
43
39
+4
20.4%
76.2%
45.7%
3.00
10.1%
.899
1.001
GF
GA
DIFF
PP%
PK%
FO%
GAA
S% (5v5)
SV% (5v5)
PDO (5v5)
Tuch–McLeod–Doan
Best Line
91.1% of xG (1.76 to 0.17), 1-0 on goals and 38-15 on attempts in 25:20 together.
Dahlin–Power
Best D Pair
85.3% of xG (0.78 to 0.13), 2-0 on goals and 20-10 on attempts in 15:21 together. Dahlin scored with the pair out. Small sample.
Team Leaders
+6
PLUS/MINUS
23:58
TOI/G
+2.7
GSAX
5
QUALITY STARTS

Skater Scatter

Any two stats, one dot per skater. What is xG?

Dot size is ice time per game. Above the dashed line: more Goals than xG. Shaded: ±1 SD of finishing luck. Dotted ring: goals more than 2 SD from xG, past finishing luck.

X axis:
Y axis:
Forwards Defense
0.01.73.45.16.801345Expected goals (ixG)Goals

23 skaters shown, 2 off the plot (no xG or Goals value).

More cuts on the Stats Playground scatter.

Goalies: Goals Against vs xGA

Green: fewer goals against than expected. Red: more.

xGAGoals Against
06131925Alex LyonAlex Lyon: 22.7 xGAAlex Lyon: 20 Goals Against (+2.7 vs expected)20 / 22.7Ukko-Pekka LuukkonenUkko-Pekka Luukkonen: 15.8 xGAUkko-Pekka Luukkonen: 17 Goals Against (-1.2 vs expected)17 / 15.8
Games 1 (Apr 19) to 13 (May 18)

13 games.

Expected Goals

Season-to-date xG against goals, game by game. What is xG?

through 13 of 13 games
Drag to zoom

These stats don’t share a natural scale, so each line is normalized to its own 0-100% range for shape comparison. Hover a point for its real value.

0.0+3.3+6.7Apr 19Apr 23Apr 28May 6May 10May 14May 18vs BOS 4-3 Wvs BOS 2-4 L@ BOS 3-1 W@ BOS 6-1 Wvs BOS 1-2 L@ BOS 4-1 Wvs MTL 4-2 Wvs MTL 1-5 L@ MTL 2-6 L@ MTL 3-2 Wvs MTL 3-6 L@ MTL 8-3 Wvs MTL 2-3 LGamexG Differential (cumulative)

Running total, all situations. Ticks under the axis: green won, red lost.

Shot Map

Every BUF shot attempt this season, to scale, attacking right.

xG range
Shot on goal (size = xG)GoalMissed shot×Blocked shot

Win DNA

Yes-or-no box-score traits, and how often the Sabres won with and without each. Correlation, not cause.

How this is measured

Every counting stat runs higher in a win (you score more when you win), so each game gets a yes-or-no question instead, and the win rate when yes is set against the win rate when no. The gap is the lift, in percentage points. A trait can be a symptom of a good night as much as a reason for one. Shot-attempt share (CF%) is left out: in a single game the trailing team piles up attempts, so out-attempting the opponent has gone with a lower win rate.

7-6 in 13 decided games, 2025–26 playoffs, with 2 of those losses in overtime.
Wins (7)Losses (6, 2 in overtime)
3+ scorersxG share 50%+, allGoalie > xGD combined 3+ ptsScored firstMore HD chances, allShot qualityDepth goal50%100%

The wider the gap on an axis, the more that trait separates a win from a loss.

The raw split, wins vs losses

The totals the table above deliberately doesn't lead with. Goals and points from both positions climb in wins, but the defense's share of the offense barely moves, which is why the question is who else scored, not whether the D did.

PER GAMEWINS (7)LOSSES (6)
Forward goals3.431.17
Defense goals1.140.67
Forward points8.572.83
Defense points3.292.33
Different goal scorers4.291.83
D share of points28%45%
D share of shots29%33%

Goal Differential Breakdown

Buffalo finished +4 over 13 games. Biggest pieces: even-strength shot volume +4.2, finishing -3.1.

Added goalsCost goalsGoal differentialWhisker: one standard deviation of shot-outcome noise.
-50+5Goals0Start+4.2Even-strengthshot volume+0.2Even-strengthshot quality+1.3Penaltydifferential0.0Power playefficiency-1.3Penalty killefficiency-3.1Finishing+0.6Goaltending+2.0Goaliepulled+0.1Unmodeled+4Goaldifferential
2025–26 PLAYOFFS, GOALS
COMPONENTGOALSNOISE (ONE SD)REPEATS
Even-strength shot volume+4.2±1.8Usually
Even-strength shot quality+0.2n/aUsually
Penalty differential+1.3n/aSometimes
Power play efficiency0.0n/aUsually
Penalty kill efficiency-1.3n/aUsually
Finishing-3.1±5.9Sometimes
Goaltending+0.6±5.6Sometimes
Goalie pulled+2.0n/aNot a skill
Unmodeled+0.1n/an/a
Goal differential+4n/an/a

Repeats asks whether a team doing this in one half of a season keeps doing it in the other, league-wide.

How this is measured
Even-strength shot volume
Out-attempting opponents at even strength, with every unblocked attempt priced at the league's average even-strength shot for the season.
Even-strength shot quality
Getting better chances than opponents at even strength, beyond the attempt count.
Penalty differential
Discipline plus drawing: minutes up a skater minus minutes down, priced at the league's net xG per power-play minute.
Power play efficiency
Net xG on the power play above or below league-rate conversion of Buffalo's own power-play minutes, shorthanded chances conceded included.
Penalty kill efficiency
Net xG on the penalty kill above or below league-rate cost of Buffalo's own shorthanded minutes, shorthanded chances created included. Positive means fewer net chances conceded than the league would have.
Finishing
Goals scored above or below what Buffalo's chances were worth, goalie in the net.
Goaltending
Goals allowed below or above what opponents' chances were worth, goalie in the net.
Goalie pulled
Net goals with a goalie pulled: into an empty net, or by the extra attacker. Follows who was trailing late, not a skill of its own.
Unmodeled
Goals on shots the model could not score, plus any goal the shot list is missing.
  • 43 for, 39 against, regulation and overtime; the rows sum to the goal differential before rounding.
  • Built from 13 of 13 games with xG data; the official goal differential was +4.
  • Even-strength volume is priced at the league's average even-strength attempt for the season (0.0623 xG in 2025-26), and penalty differential at the league's net xG per power-play minute (0.104), both measured over every game in the league with the same model. Over the games covered, Buffalo's own games averaged 0.0652 xG per even-strength attempt; quality is what remains of the even-strength xG gap after volume.
  • Power-play and shorthanded minutes are read from the situation code on each play, both goalies in, which runs slightly above the official power-play figure because a penalty that expires between two plays is credited to the earlier state. The league rate per minute is priced on the same clock, so the two cancel.
  • Regulation and overtime goals only. A shootout's deciding goal is not a shot the model sees and is left out.
  • Shots at an empty net, and shots by a team with its own goalie pulled, count only as actual goals in the goalie-pulled bar. Both depend on who was trailing late, so they stay out of finishing, goaltending, special teams and even strength.
  • Goaltending leaves out shots taken while the opponent's goalie was pulled; those count only under Goalie pulled. The Goalies table's GSAx counts every shot faced, so it reads +1.5 against +0.6 here.
  • Whiskers on finishing and goaltending are one standard deviation of shot-outcome noise, each shot a coin flip weighted at its xG. The volume whisker is a Poisson approximation from the attempt counts. Quality, the three special-teams bars, goalie pulled and unmodeled carry no whisker.
  • Repeats asks how much of a component carries from one half of a team's season to the other, measured league-wide over 2016-17 to 2025-26 (314 team-seasons) with the same model: a split-half correlation, corrected to full-season length. Usually is 0.6 and above, sometimes 0.3 to 0.6, rarely below 0.3. Even a full season of finishing is about one third signal and two thirds shot-outcome luck.

Line Combinations

Lines and pairs at 5v5 this postseason, summed over every game together. 13 of 13 games have shift data.

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
Best at 5v5: Tuch–McLeod–Doan, 91.1% of xG and 1-0 on goals (min 10:00 together and 0.25 xG, half that with a goal; units ahead on goals rank first, then the best mix of xG share and on-ice goals, weighted two to one).
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Tuch–Thompson–Krebs11112:584.174.1949.8%6511412647.5%-7.8%-4.9%81875356
Norris–Doan–Benson880:442.592.4951.0%53866855.8%2.4%-3.0%59523636
Zucker–McLeod–Quinn1074:411.572.5737.9%26887454.3%0.7%-17.7%63563238
Greenway–Malenstyn–Kozak639:370.681.0239.8%20345140.0%-14.8%-14.5%23341220
Zucker–Quinn–Helenius438:262.051.0865.5%31474153.4%-0.4%13.0%39252214
Thompson–Norris–Benson228:531.640.8166.9%11372361.7%8.4%14.2%28211911
Tuch–McLeod–Doan225:201.760.1791.1%10381571.7%18.8%39.5%2710186
Doan–Ostlund–Benson318:130.870.1982.3%2020774.1%20.9%29.5%175134
Pageof 2
Defense Pairs
Best at 5v5: Dahlin–Power, 85.3% of xG and 2-0 on goals (min 10:00 together and 0.25 xG, half that with a goal; units ahead on goals rank first, then the best mix of xG share and on-ice goals, weighted two to one).
LineGPTOIxGFxGAxG%GFGACFCACF%CF% RelxGF% RelFFFASFSA
Samuelsson–Dahlin13143:304.613.6455.9%7413710456.8%3.9%2.9%94736151
Byram–Power13135:075.624.0957.9%8515612156.3%3.4%5.8%117917358
Stanley–Timmins867:550.751.8129.5%12696451.9%-2.1%-25.9%46401931
Dahlin–Byram1341:392.381.6459.2%22664658.9%5.7%6.2%43342919
Samuelsson–Power1335:291.600.8665.0%10392660.0%6.6%12.2%29171611
Timmins–Power925:170.360.7233.6%02192345.2%-8.8%-20.6%1520710
Timmins–Samuelsson1223:080.390.4049.4%00193138.0%-16.4%-4.3%131567
Timmins–Byram1021:450.261.6213.8%12103025.0%-29.7%-42.0%825517
Pageof 2

With or Without You

Buffalo's 5v5 CF% and xGF% with Samuelsson on the ice, with and without each teammate. Δ is together minus apart. That gap is always measured from the named player's side, so the same pair can read positive on one player's table and negative on the other's. 2025–26 playoffs, minimum 20:00 together. Together counts every 5v5 second the two share, whoever else is on the ice, so a pair's time and xGF% here differ slightly from the Line Combinations table, which counts only the seconds that exact pair or trio was the unit. 13 of 13 games have shift data.

Teammate
TOGETHER
SAMUELSSON APART
IMPACT
TOI TogetherCF%xGF%CF%xGF%Δ CF%Δ xGF%
Dahlin
144:4056.6%55.9%
53.8%60.5%
+2.8-4.6
Benson
73:1758.3%58.8%
54.1%57.1%
+4.2+1.7
Doan
66:0860.9%67.3%
53.5%53.2%
+7.4+14.1
Thompson
64:2759.4%51.0%
53.7%61.5%
+5.7-10.5
McLeod
62:3658.3%57.0%
54.4%57.8%
+3.9-0.8
Norris
61:0357.4%60.3%
54.7%56.5%
+2.7+3.8
Krebs
60:3957.6%51.5%
54.5%60.2%
+3.1-8.7
Tuch
60:2558.3%75.7%
54.3%51.9%
+4.0+23.8
Quinn
59:3856.0%61.1%
55.2%56.7%
+0.8+4.4
Zucker
55:4357.1%62.1%
54.8%56.5%
+2.3+5.6
Greenway
43:1542.9%35.7%
58.2%62.7%
-15.3-27.0
Malenstyn
41:4347.9%42.1%
56.9%59.7%
-9.0-17.6
Power
36:1360.0%65.0%
54.6%56.0%
+5.4+9.0
Kozak
25:4632.5%44.0%
57.8%58.5%
-25.3-14.5
Timmins
24:3737.0%46.0%
58.1%58.4%
-21.1-12.4

Shift Profile

Shift length and on-ice results, 2025–26 playoffs. Empty-net goals against are left out. 13 of 13 games have shift data.

What do Short %, Hemmed-In Shifts, Long-Change Gap etc. mean?
GP (shifts)
Games in which the NHL shift chart has rows for this skater. It can read lower than the games played in the Skaters table, because a game with no usable shift chart is left out of every column here.
Short / Long
"Short" is a skater's shifts under 0:45; "Long" is their shifts of 1:00 or more. Short % / Long % is the share of all their shifts that fall in that range.
CF% (short) / CF% (long)
Shot-attempt share (Corsi) specifically during a skater's own short shifts versus their own long shifts. Compares whether they generate or allow more when the shift is quick versus when it drags on.
GF-GA (long)
Goals for minus goals against specifically during a skater's shifts of 1:00 or more. A single-game or short-series number here is a very small sample; look for it to hold up across a season.
PP Shifts / PK Shifts
Number of shifts a skater started while their team had a power play or was shorthanded, tagged by the strength in effect at the moment they stepped on the ice.
Long-Change Gap
This skater's average 2nd-period shift length minus the average of their 1st and 3rd. Positive means their shifts really do run longer in the 2nd, but that period is the "long change" (the bench sits at center ice, so whichever team is defending the far end can't change on the fly as easily), so a positive gap isn't automatically fatigue.
Hemmed-In Shifts
Even-strength shifts in which the unit was on for more than 60 seconds of unbroken play: no whistle came, so they could not change. The number in parentheses is how many of those only ended at a whistle. Most of such a shift is ordinary play: the first minute looks like any other stretch of the game, and only the time past it tilts hard toward the defending end (the game page counts that as pinned time). Shift length is an outcome here, not a cause, so this column says nothing about why a goal went in.
Short-Rest Shifts
Even-strength shifts a skater started after less than 45 seconds on the bench, same period only (an intermission is a full rest). Power-play and penalty-kill units legitimately take long shifts and short rests, so both of these columns leave them out.
PlayerGP (shifts)ShiftsAvg ShiftShort %Long %CF% (short)CF% (long)GF-GA (long)PP ShiftsPK ShiftsLong-Change GapHemmed-In ShiftsShort-Rest Shifts
R. Dahlin133550:5343.7%30.4%51.3%71.3%+43819+6s40 (12 to whistle)44
M. Samuelsson133430:5142.9%27.4%44.0%43.6%-2943+10s50 (16 to whistle)40
B. Byram133390:5241.9%32.7%46.9%56.4%04020+3s52 (14 to whistle)41
A. Tuch133370:4849.3%25.5%42.9%65.2%-24349+4s37 (11 to whistle)21
O. Power133370:5041.8%28.8%54.8%51.7%+22540+5s49 (15 to whistle)30
T. Thompson133230:4847.1%26.3%50.0%70.1%+14320+7s40 (15 to whistle)16
R. McLeod133210:4158.9%14.6%47.0%72.0%04452+2s16 (2 to whistle)18
Z. Benson133000:4446.7%19.7%58.0%71.6%+33815+3s28 (8 to whistle)12
J. Doan132960:4354.7%16.6%60.0%65.7%+14011-2s21 (8 to whistle)7
J. Quinn132750:4750.5%25.1%49.7%65.3%+2425+3s31 (6 to whistle)18
C. Timmins132720:4849.6%22.1%40.9%19.2%-4453+9s28 (7 to whistle)20
P. Krebs132640:4354.9%20.5%42.9%57.1%01618+2s32 (8 to whistle)14
J. Zucker132530:4553.8%23.3%47.3%75.8%+1361+3s21 (5 to whistle)7
J. Norris102370:4358.2%17.7%57.9%62.7%-1268+2s17 (7 to whistle)11
J. Greenway132120:4159.9%15.1%35.0%17.6%-31140+8s13 (4 to whistle)5
B. Malenstyn132050:4066.3%13.2%40.9%16.5%-3940+8s9 (4 to whistle)3
L. Stanley81360:4642.6%19.1%45.2%37.7%-1318+5s16 (3 to whistle)8
T. Kozak61060:3968.9%11.3%55.2%19.5%038+12s7 (2 to whistle)2
K. Helenius4800:4058.8%15.0%54.7%40.4%-110-6s9 (3 to whistle)2
N. Ostlund3470:4453.2%19.1%55.6%100.0%063+10s3 (1 to whistle)0
J. Dunne2260:3769.2%11.5%47.1%66.7%020+3s3 (1 to whistle)1
L. Schenn2240:3862.5%12.5%38.5%100.0%016+3s20
Z. Metsa2200:4740.0%15.0%27.3%66.7%001-11s1 (1 to whistle)1
S. Carrick1110:3481.8%9.1%14.3%100.0%001-17s00
M. Kesselring150:5360.0%40.0%0.0%25.0%000+50s20

Skaters

PlayerNo.GPGAPTS+/-PIMPPSHGWGSOGG/60A/60P/60SOG/60S%FO%TOI/GxGxG/60GAx
Tage Thompson721351015022100461.162.313.4710.6310.9%34.9%19:586.01.39-1.0
Rasmus Dahlin261341014+420200460.771.932.708.868.7%0.0%23:583.70.71+0.3
Josh Doan91133710+68001320.851.982.839.059.4%83.3%16:194.31.22-1.3
Zach Benson613549+664101261.351.082.437.0219.2%0.0%17:063.40.92+1.6
Alex Tuch891343708002460.900.671.5710.338.7%57.7%20:336.31.42-2.3
Mattias Samuelsson2313347+42001190.620.831.443.9215.8%0.0%22:220.80.16+2.2
Bowen Byram413437012100290.820.621.445.9813.8%0.0%22:242.10.43+1.9
Jack Quinn2213257-20201250.561.401.977.028.0%0.0%16:264.11.14-2.1
Peyton Krebs1913246+322000100.631.271.903.1620.0%49.3%14:351.80.58+0.2
Owen Power2513066+5000080.001.291.291.720.0%0.0%21:280.70.15-0.7
Ryan McLeod7113145-72100170.271.091.364.625.9%50.7%17:001.80.48-0.8
Jason Zucker1713224-44100180.630.631.275.7111.1%11.1%14:333.00.94-1.0
Jordan Greenway1213213-1600170.820.411.232.8828.6%50.0%11:130.50.19+1.5
Beck Malenstyn29131230800080.440.881.323.5212.5%0.0%10:300.50.24+0.5
Josh Norris910123+26000160.360.711.075.696.3%56.3%16:533.41.19-2.4
Conor Timmins211302208000130.000.550.553.570.0%0.0%16:480.60.16-0.6
Noah Ostlund863112+3200041.741.743.476.9525.0%18.8%11:311.11.84-0.1
Konsta Helenius944202+10000102.230.002.2311.1420.0%30.3%13:281.61.82+0.4
Tyson Kozak486011+2000060.000.880.885.260.0%43.3%11:251.21.03-1.2
Zach Metsa732101-1010013.810.003.813.81100.0%0.0%7:520.10.27+0.9
Luke Schenn2000-1000000.000.000.000.000.0%7:33
Sam Carrick1010000200020.000.000.0019.100.0%25.0%6:170.00.290.0
Logan Stanley8000-21900060.000.000.003.450.0%0.0%13:040.30.17-0.3
Michael Kesselring810000000000.0%4:25
Josh Dunne2000+1000010.000.000.003.790.0%31.3%7:550.10.23-0.1
Total4371114215100739610.9%

Goalies

PlayerNo.GPWLGAASV%SOxGAGSAx
Alex Lyon3410432.59.904022.7+2.7
Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen16333.18.876015.8-1.2
Total760

A goalie is credited a game played for any appearance, relief included, so GP sums above the team's own games played by the number of relief outings. The Total row leaves GP out for that reason.

xG by Game

DateOpponentScorexG ForxG AgainstxG DiffGoal DiffGD vs xG Diff
Apr 19vs BOS4-34.131.86+2.27+1-1.27
Apr 21vs BOS2-43.593.66-0.07-2-1.93
Apr 23@ BOS3-13.402.59+0.81+2+1.19
Apr 26@ BOS6-14.152.20+1.95+5+3.05
Apr 28vs BOS1-22.823.37-0.55-1-0.45
May 1@ BOS4-14.141.95+2.19+3+0.81
May 6vs MTL4-22.492.69-0.20+2+2.20
May 8vs MTL1-52.294.46-2.17-4-1.83
May 10@ MTL2-63.465.72-2.26-4-1.74
May 12@ MTL3-23.193.51-0.32+1+1.32
May 14vs MTL3-63.713.29+0.42-3-3.42
May 16@ MTL8-35.052.40+2.65+5+2.35
May 18vs MTL2-34.802.85+1.95-1-2.95

All situations. GD vs xG Diff is goal differential minus xG differential. Both difference columns are taken from the values printed beside them, so each row adds up as shown.