Wed, Nov 24, 2010·HSBC Arena, Buffalo
Pittsburgh Penguins 1, Buffalo Sabres 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Buffalo Sabres win this game 64% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 115 | 07 | 07 | 129 |
| BUF | 08 | 011 | 011 | 030 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 15:04PITPascal DupuisGWGAssists: Sidney Crosby · Wrist, 0.19 xG1–0
Penalties (11)
- P1 13:52PITMax Talbot: Roughing2 min
- P1 13:52PITMax Talbot: Roughing2 min
- P1 13:52BUFPaul Gaustad: Roughing2 min
- P1 13:52BUFPaul Gaustad: Roughing2 min
- P1 17:17BUFThomas Vanek: Hooking2 min
- P2 1:08PITEvgeni Malkin: Hooking2 min
- P2 10:58BUFJordan Leopold: Tripping2 min
- P2 17:02BUFColin Stuart: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P3 1:20PITMax Talbot: Interference2 min
- P3 3:35PITChris Kunitz: Slashing2 min
- P3 5:37BUFTyler Ennis: High sticking2 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 20:00Crosby won the faceoff against Gaustad
- 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKennedy – Conner – Letestu9:37
xG 0.15–0.02 (89%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Dupuis – Kunitz – Crosby10:22
xG 0.47–0.47 (50%)attempts 11–13goals 1–0
- Adams – Rupp – Comrie4:41
xG 0.13–0.18 (41%)attempts 4–6goals 0–0
- Cooke – Talbot – Malkin8:08
xG 0.12–0.32 (27%)attempts 6–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestOrpik – Letang16:12
xG 0.67–0.26 (72%)attempts 20–15goals 1–0
- Engelland – Goligoski10:05
xG 0.31–0.26 (55%)attempts 7–6goals 0–0
- Martin – Michalek13:06
xG 0.19–0.61 (24%)attempts 9–20goals 0–0
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestGrier – Gaustad – Gerbe7:18
xG 0.46–0.10 (83%)attempts 14–4goals 0–0
- Hecht – Pominville – Stuart7:06
xG 0.24–0.02 (92%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Roy – Vanek – Ennis3:31
xG 0.13–0.04 (78%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
- Hecht – Pominville – McCormick3:17
xG 0.09–0.03 (72%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMontador – Morrisonn2:58
xG 0.23–0.02 (93%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Leopold – Montador12:37
xG 0.36–0.21 (63%)attempts 12–9goals 0–0
- Sekera – Myers14:23
xG 0.63–0.61 (51%)attempts 18–10goals 0–1
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 PIT. 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, Buffalo Sabres win this game 64% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BUF − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).