Sat, Nov 20, 2010·HSBC Arena, Buffalo
Tampa Bay Lightning 2, Buffalo Sabres 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 59% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 110 | 19 | 03 | 222 |
| BUF | 17 | 011 | 012 | 130 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:52BUFThomas VanekUnassisted · Slap, 0.04 xG0–1
- P1 18:10TBLTeddy PurcellAssists: Randy Jones, Pavel Kubina · Tip-in, 0.12 xG1–1
- P2 11:26TBLAdam HallGWGUnassisted · Backhand, 0.19 xG2–1
Penalties (7)
- P1 10:28BUFThomas Vanek: Hooking2 min
- P1 16:20BUFPaul Gaustad: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P1 16:20TBLDominic Moore: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P1 18:53BUFPaul Gaustad: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P2 7:11TBLSteven Stamkos: Slashing2 min
- P2 15:21BUFPaul Gaustad: Tripping2 min
- P2 19:24TBLDominic Moore: Holding the stick2 min
Replay
Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Gaustad won the faceoff against Hall
- Goal
- Shot
- Miss
- Block
- Hit
- Takeaway
- Giveaway
- Faceoff
- Penalty
The numbers
Team totals, side by side.
Line combinations that worked
Model-basedEach team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against. Shift data for this game is incomplete, so treat these as rough.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestHall – Bergenheim – Thompson5:17
xG 0.31–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Hall – Thompson – Jones2:17
xG 0.08–0.04 (66%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- St. Louis – Downie – Stamkos13:04
xG 0.10–0.11 (47%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
- Malone – Moore – Purcell8:31
xG 0.01–0.16 (6%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestKubina – Jones12:23
xG 0.70–0.28 (71%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Clark – Hedman11:34
xG 0.34–0.07 (84%)attempts 5–7goals 1–0
- Vernace – Hedman2:08
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 0–0goals 0–0
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestHecht – Connolly – Pominville10:27
xG 0.44–0.02 (95%)attempts 13–4goals 0–0
- Roy – Vanek – Ennis10:23
xG 0.16–0.12 (57%)attempts 4–8goals 1–0
- Gaustad – Kaleta – Gerbe7:08
xG 0.03–0.14 (19%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- Niedermayer – Grier – McCormick8:08
xG 0.01–0.43 (3%)attempts 1–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLeopold – Montador17:33
xG 0.65–0.58 (53%)attempts 16–16goals 1–0
- Sekera – Myers12:30
xG 0.22–0.23 (50%)attempts 12–6goals 0–0
- Rivet – Morrisonn12:22
xG 0.06–0.30 (16%)attempts 4–10goals 0–0
How the game flowed
Model-basedChance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.
Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.
Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute
Win probability
Model-basedHow each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.
BUF's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line BUF is favoured, below it TBL. Dots are goals.
Did the better team win?
Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 59% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BUF − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).