Fri, Feb 4, 2011·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Buffalo Sabres 2, Pittsburgh Penguins 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 50% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 210 | 06 | 013 | 229 |
| PIT | 014 | 317 | 08 | 339 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 0:17BUFPaul GaustadAssists: Rob Niedermayer · Wrist, 0.33 xG1–0
- P1 7:03BUFMike GrierAssists: Rob Niedermayer, Paul Gaustad · Wrist, 0.14 xG2–0
- P2 3:50PITDustin JeffreyAssists: Chris Conner, Alex Goligoski · Wrist, 0.14 xG2–1
- P2 6:24PITTyler KennedyAssists: Zbynek Michalek · Wrist, 0.03 xG2–2
- P2 7:04PITMatt CookeGWGAssists: Jordan Staal, Pascal Dupuis · Backhand, 0.10 xG2–3
Penalties (11)
- P1 15:34BUFMike Weber: Roughing2 min
- P1 15:34PITChris Kunitz: Roughing2 min
- P1 19:21BUFJochen Hecht: High sticking2 min
- P2 4:10BUFTyler Myers: Roughing2 min
- P2 10:19BUFJordan Leopold: Holding2 min
- P2 10:19BUFSteve Montador: Roughing2 min
- P2 10:19PITMatt Cooke: Misconduct10 min
- P2 10:19PITMatt Cooke: Roughing2 min
- P2 11:10PITKris Letang: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P2 14:05BUFShaone Morrisonn: Cross checking2 min
- P3 11:06BUFTyler 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 20:00Gaustad won the faceoff against Malkin
- 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.
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestHecht – Pominville – Vanek10:16
xG 0.89–0.25 (78%)attempts 13–5goals 0–0
- Niedermayer – Grier – Gaustad10:05
xG 0.59–0.54 (52%)attempts 5–11goals 2–0
- Connolly – Stafford – Ennis2:08
xG 0.00–0.02 (0%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Stafford – Byron – Ennis9:37
xG 0.41–0.45 (47%)attempts 9–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMorrisonn – Weber13:51
xG 0.87–0.38 (69%)attempts 10–11goals 1–1
- Sekera – Myers15:19
xG 0.41–0.41 (50%)attempts 9–13goals 0–1
- Leopold – Montador14:10
xG 0.93–1.14 (45%)attempts 17–18goals 1–1
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestAdams – Rupp – Talbot4:51
xG 0.21–0.01 (94%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Cooke – Kennedy – Staal7:51
xG 0.50–0.33 (60%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
- Conner – Tangradi – Jeffrey2:25
xG 0.00–0.02 (0%)attempts 0–1goals 0–0
- Dupuis – Kunitz – Jeffrey2:34
xG 0.12–0.23 (35%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMartin – Michalek15:45
xG 0.71–0.14 (84%)attempts 17–9goals 1–0
- Goligoski – Letang2:01
xG 0.32–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–0goals 1–0
- Orpik – Engelland3:53
xG 0.30–0.02 (93%)attempts 6–4goals 1–0
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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT is favoured, below it BUF. 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 50% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).