Tue, Mar 8, 2011·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Buffalo Sabres 1, Pittsburgh Penguins 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 52% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 115 | 07 | 08 | 130 |
| PIT | 012 | 28 | 111 | 331 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:47BUFRob NiedermayerAssists: Tyler Myers · Wrist, 0.04 xG1–0
- P2 1:25PITJames NealAssists: Deryk Engelland, Jordan Staal · Wrist, 0.12 xG1–1
- P2 4:42PITZbynek MichalekGWGAssists: James Neal, Mark Letestu · Slap, 0.01 xG1–2
- P3 13:06PITMark LetestuAssists: Zbynek Michalek · Tip-in, 0.09 xG1–3
Penalties (12)
- P1 7:17PITDeryk Engelland: High sticking2 min
- P1 8:47BUFTyler Ennis: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P1 9:23BUFSteve Montador: Boarding2 min
- P1 15:00BUFLuke Adam: Elbowing2 min
- P2 5:54BUFCody McCormick: Tripping2 min
- P2 10:13PITChris Kunitz: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P2 14:20BUFMark Mancari: Roughing2 min
- P2 14:20BUFPaul Gaustad: Roughing2 min
- P2 14:20PITBen Lovejoy: Roughing2 min
- P2 17:47PITTyler Kennedy: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P3 5:24BUFPaul Gaustad: High sticking2 min
- P3 7:27BUFChris Butler: Cross checking2 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 20:00Connolly won the faceoff against Talbot
- 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
- bestNiedermayer – Parrish – McCormick5:54
xG 0.26–0.00 (99%)attempts 9–4goals 1–0
- Gaustad – Mancari – Gerbe4:40
xG 0.31–0.07 (82%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Boyes – Stafford – Ennis2:57
xG 0.14–0.01 (91%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Boyes – Pominville – Gerbe2:50
xG 0.13–0.08 (62%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestButler – Myers11:55
xG 0.47–0.17 (73%)attempts 17–6goals 1–1
- Montador – Sekera15:32
xG 0.37–0.26 (59%)attempts 13–11goals 0–1
- Leopold – Weber7:41
xG 0.29–0.41 (42%)attempts 7–11goals 0–1
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- Cooke – Dupuis – Jeffrey5:00
xG 0.24–0.23 (52%)attempts 5–5goals 0–1
- Cooke – Dupuis – Talbot2:34
xG 0.08–0.08 (53%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
- Adams – Rupp – Talbot2:42
xG 0.00–0.03 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
- Kovalev – Neal – Letestu6:29
xG 0.11–0.18 (38%)attempts 7–5goals 2–0
Defence pairs
- bestEngelland – Lovejoy7:47
xG 0.31–0.09 (77%)attempts 7–5goals 1–0
- Michalek – Niskanen2:36
xG 0.07–0.08 (48%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Martin – Michalek7:50
xG 0.15–0.26 (37%)attempts 5–6goals 2–1
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.
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 52% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).