Sat, Oct 22, 2011·St. Pete Times Forum, Tampa
Buffalo Sabres 0, Tampa Bay Lightning 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 79% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 08 | 08 | 05 | 021 |
| TBL | 07 | 110 | 29 | 326 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 4:51TBLPavel KubinaGWGAssists: Steven Stamkos, Teddy Purcell · Slap, 0.02 xG0–1
- P3 8:30TBLMartin St. LouisAssists: Vincent Lecavalier, Brett Connolly · Wrist, 0.12 xG0–2
- P3 18:33TBLVictor HedmanENAssists: Martin St. Louis · Wrist, 0.72 xG0–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 6:21TBLSteve Downie: Roughing2 min
- P1 6:21BUFPatrick Kaleta: Roughing2 min
- P2 6:38TBLBlair Jones: Interference2 min
- P2 10:25BUFLuke Adam: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 4:46TBLMartin St. Louis: Hooking2 min
- P3 12:07TBLVictor Hedman: Delaying game2 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 Lecavalier
- 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
- bestGaustad – Kaleta – Gerbe9:21
xG 0.15–0.08 (64%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Boyes – McCormick – Leino3:22
xG 0.09–0.10 (48%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Roy – Vanek – Stafford2:42
xG 0.00–0.05 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 0–0
- Roy – Stafford – Leino9:10
xG 0.24–0.44 (36%)attempts 8–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestLeopold – Sekera2:44
xG 0.14–0.02 (86%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
- Sekera – Gragnani13:01
xG 0.19–0.22 (47%)attempts 13–6goals 0–0
- Regehr – Myers11:45
xG 0.20–0.26 (43%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestSt. Louis – Lecavalier – Connolly10:22
xG 0.51–0.20 (72%)attempts 10–7goals 1–0
- Malone – Purcell – Stamkos8:55
xG 0.26–0.05 (85%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
- Moore – Downie – Jones8:14
xG 0.21–0.16 (57%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
- Hall – Thompson – Pyatt9:48
xG 0.04–0.28 (13%)attempts 2–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestClark – Kubina16:47
xG 0.82–0.41 (67%)attempts 13–15goals 1–0
- Brewer – Hedman16:33
xG 0.52–0.31 (63%)attempts 11–8goals 1–0
- Bergeron – Gilroy12:38
xG 0.41–0.29 (58%)attempts 8–16goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 79% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).