Fri, Mar 23, 2012·Madison Square Garden, New York
Buffalo Sabres 4, New York Rangers 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, New York Rangers win this game 55% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 08 | 213 | 25 | 426 |
| NYR | 06 | 18 | 013 | 127 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 3:14BUFTravis TurnbullAssists: Brad Boyes · Deflected, 0.03 xG1–0
- P2 9:32NYRBrian BoyleAssists: Artem Anisimov, Tim Erixon · Tip-in, 0.16 xG1–1
- P2 13:43BUFDrew StaffordGWGAssists: Tyler Ennis, Marcus Foligno · Snap, 0.07 xG2–1
- P3 14:00BUFTyler EnnisAssists: Drew Stafford, Marcus Foligno · Snap, 0.10 xG3–1
- P3 16:09BUFDrew StaffordAssists: Tyler Ennis · Snap, 0.12 xG4–1
Penalties (3)
- P2 4:08NYRDan Girardi: Holding2 min
- P2 10:33BUFTyler Ennis: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 2:42BUFChristian Ehrhoff: 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 20:00Stepan won the faceoff against Roy
- 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
- bestRoy – Pominville – Leino16:19
xG 1.47–0.42 (78%)attempts 15–10goals 0–0
- Vanek – Tropp – Hodgson11:45
xG 0.57–0.53 (52%)attempts 17–11goals 0–0
- Stafford – Ennis – Foligno12:59
xG 0.76–0.93 (45%)attempts 13–15goals 3–0
- Boyes – McCormick – Turnbull3:05
xG 0.03–0.21 (11%)attempts 1–4goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestEhrhoff – Sulzer18:04
xG 1.19–0.57 (68%)attempts 21–15goals 0–0
- Regehr – Sekera13:03
xG 1.10–0.64 (63%)attempts 13–12goals 2–0
- Leopold – Myers16:22
xG 0.63–0.65 (49%)attempts 16–12goals 2–1
New York Rangers
Forward lines
- bestBoyle – Prust – Hagelin2:02
xG 0.38–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Richards – Gaborik – Hagelin11:26
xG 0.58–0.54 (52%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- Rupp – Mitchell – Prust2:09
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Dubinsky – Callahan – Anisimov5:44
xG 0.40–0.52 (44%)attempts 7–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBickel – Erixon13:09
xG 0.94–0.40 (70%)attempts 17–9goals 1–1
- Staal – Del Zotto16:43
xG 0.54–1.06 (34%)attempts 8–22goals 0–3
- Girardi – McDonagh19:40
xG 0.77–1.34 (37%)attempts 17–20goals 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.
NYR's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line NYR 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, New York Rangers win this game 55% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NYR − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).