Sat, Feb 11, 2012·First Niagara Center, Buffalo
Tampa Bay Lightning 2, Buffalo Sabres 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Buffalo Sabres win this game 52% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 012 | 211 | 05 | 228 |
| BUF | 06 | 07 | 114 | 127 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:31TBLSteve DownieAssists: Victor Hedman, Steven Stamkos · Wrist, 0.17 xG1–0
- P2 13:16TBLSteven StamkosGWGAssists: Teddy Purcell · Slap, 0.16 xG2–0
- P3 7:07BUFJason PominvilleAssists: Thomas Vanek, Mike Weber · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–1
Penalties (4)
- P1 18:17BUFChristian Ehrhoff: Tripping2 min
- P2 0:42BUFJordan Leopold: Tripping2 min
- P3 12:05BUFZack Kassian: Slashing2 min
- P3 15:27TBLJT Wyman: 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 20:00Lecavalier 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.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestDownie – Purcell – Stamkos11:07
xG 0.72–0.26 (73%)attempts 17–6goals 2–0
- St. Louis – Lecavalier – Connolly3:02
xG 0.21–0.03 (89%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Moore – Thompson – Shannon2:17
xG 0.00–0.07 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
- St. Louis – Lecavalier – Wyman2:18
xG 0.02–0.12 (13%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Gervais – Mikkelson8:09
xG 0.15–0.13 (55%)attempts 4–7goals 0–1
- Kubina – Brewer11:00
xG 0.21–0.20 (51%)attempts 8–9goals 0–0
- Gilroy – Hedman2:28
xG 0.21–0.22 (49%)attempts 2–4goals 1–0
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestGaustad – Kaleta – Gerbe7:53
xG 0.54–0.09 (86%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
- Boyes – Ellis – Kassian6:04
xG 0.16–0.06 (72%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Gaustad – Kaleta – Leino4:21
xG 0.22–0.14 (60%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Roy – Pominville – Vanek4:41
xG 0.23–0.17 (58%)attempts 7–2goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestRegehr – Leopold13:25
xG 0.44–0.12 (78%)attempts 15–10goals 0–0
- Sekera – Weber13:22
xG 0.24–0.15 (62%)attempts 7–9goals 1–0
- Sekera – Myers2:48
xG 0.07–0.05 (55%)attempts 6–1goals 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 TBL. 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 52% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BUF − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).