Thu, Apr 5, 2012·Wells Fargo Center, Philadelphia
Buffalo Sabres 1, Philadelphia Flyers 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 03 | 113 | 010 | 126 |
| PHI | 09 | 010 | 216 | 235 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 17:26BUFVille LeinoAssists: Drew Stafford, Robyn Regehr · Wrist, 0.40 xG1–0
- P3 6:05PHIMarc-Andre BourdonAssists: Andreas Lilja, Claude Giroux · Slap, 0.03 xG1–1
- P3 15:39PHIMatt ReadGWGAssists: Jakub Voracek, Marc-Andre Bourdon · Wrist, 0.21 xG1–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 5:56BUFVille Leino: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P1 17:02PHIScott Hartnell: Roughing2 min
- P1 19:19BUFMike Weber: Roughing2 min
- P1 19:19PHIWayne Simmonds: Roughing2 min
- P3 11:13PHIJakub Voracek: Hooking2 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 20:00Roy won the faceoff against Couturier
- 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
- bestStafford – Ennis – Foligno14:11
xG 1.32–1.04 (56%)attempts 20–20goals 0–2
- Roy – Pominville – Leino12:25
xG 0.43–0.43 (50%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
- McCormick – Kaleta – Tropp3:32
xG 0.03–0.32 (8%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
- Vanek – Gerbe – Hodgson10:12
xG 0.03–0.58 (4%)attempts 4–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRegehr – Sekera13:27
xG 1.27–0.62 (67%)attempts 12–11goals 1–1
- Leopold – McNabb5:25
xG 0.41–0.30 (58%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Leopold – Weber14:50
xG 0.89–0.85 (51%)attempts 22–19goals 0–0
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestJagr – Hartnell – Schenn3:55
xG 0.61–0.03 (96%)attempts 9–2goals 0–0
- Giroux – Voracek – Read3:28
xG 0.49–0.46 (51%)attempts 8–5goals 1–0
- Jagr – Hartnell – Giroux9:05
xG 0.42–0.42 (50%)attempts 9–10goals 0–0
- Talbot – Simmonds – Couturier2:47
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 0–0goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLilja – Bourdon16:06
xG 1.27–0.57 (69%)attempts 25–15goals 2–0
- Timonen – Carle11:19
xG 0.42–0.21 (66%)attempts 10–7goals 0–0
- Kubina – Coburn15:59
xG 0.91–0.77 (54%)attempts 17–12goals 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.
PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI 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, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).