Sat, Mar 26, 2011·HSBC Arena, Buffalo
New Jersey Devils 0, Buffalo Sabres 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, New Jersey Devils win this game 61% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJD | 09 | 010 | 011 | 030 |
| BUF | 216 | 07 | 05 | 228 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:17BUFNathan GerbeGWGAssists: Paul Gaustad, Brad Boyes · Wrist, 0.08 xG0–1
- P1 16:17BUFThomas VanekAssists: Jason Pominville, Tim Connolly · Wrist, 0.02 xG0–2
Penalties (4)
- P2 16:27BUFTyler Ennis: Tripping2 min
- P2 18:01NJDPatrik Elias: Boarding2 min
- P3 2:52BUFCody McCormick: High sticking2 min
- P3 7:17NJDHenrik Tallinder: Tripping2 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 Elias
- 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.
New Jersey Devils
Forward lines
- bestSteckel – Clarkson – Pelley8:26
xG 0.98–0.44 (69%)attempts 12–9goals 0–0
- Rolston – Elias – Zubrus10:46
xG 0.53–0.25 (68%)attempts 10–7goals 0–0
- Mair – Tedenby – Josefson6:23
xG 0.04–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Kovalchuk – Zajac – Palmieri12:48
xG 0.22–0.42 (34%)attempts 11–12goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestTallinder – Fayne12:41
xG 0.83–0.21 (80%)attempts 17–3goals 0–1
- Tallinder – Leach5:44
xG 0.44–0.02 (95%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
- Tallinder – Greene2:00
xG 0.15–0.05 (76%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestHecht – Stafford – Ennis11:50
xG 0.45–0.23 (66%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
- Boyes – Gaustad – Gerbe11:32
xG 0.34–0.36 (49%)attempts 7–12goals 1–0
- Connolly – Pominville – Vanek10:50
xG 0.29–0.54 (35%)attempts 13–14goals 1–0
- Niedermayer – Grier – McCormick8:13
xG 0.32–0.68 (32%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSekera – Myers16:29
xG 0.83–0.25 (77%)attempts 15–12goals 2–0
- Morrisonn – Weber13:04
xG 0.32–0.36 (47%)attempts 14–9goals 0–0
- Montador – Butler16:46
xG 0.50–0.55 (48%)attempts 12–17goals 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 NJD. 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, New Jersey Devils win this game 61% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BUF − NJD), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).