Mon, Jan 27, 2014·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Buffalo Sabres 0, Pittsburgh Penguins 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 82% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 05 | 011 | 08 | 024 |
| PIT | 015 | 210 | 19 | 334 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 5:44PITChris KunitzGWGAssists: Brian Gibbons, Sidney Crosby · Backhand, 0.12 xG0–1
- P2 12:05PITDeryk EngellandAssists: Craig Adams, Tanner Glass · Wrist, 0.10 xG0–2
- P3 19:32PITTanner GlassENAssists: Craig Adams, Sidney Crosby · Wrist, 0.63 xG0–3
Penalties (4)
- P1 10:00BUFHenrik Tallinder: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P1 13:22PITTanner Glass: High sticking2 min
- P2 7:13PITJayson Megna: High sticking2 min
- P3 9:14PITChris Kunitz: Slashing2 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 20:00Ennis won the faceoff against Crosby
- 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
- bestFoligno – Varone – Flynn8:48
xG 0.44–0.07 (86%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Moulson – Ennis – Girgensons12:22
xG 0.50–0.41 (55%)attempts 8–8goals 0–0
- Konopka – Ellis – Omark6:12
xG 0.06–0.18 (24%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Ott – Leino – Hodgson13:33
xG 0.11–0.83 (12%)attempts 5–13goals 0–2
Defence pairs
- bestEhrhoff – Ruhwedel12:35
xG 0.44–0.22 (67%)attempts 10–8goals 0–0
- Weber – Ruhwedel3:43
xG 0.21–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Tallinder – Ruhwedel2:26
xG 0.00–0.07 (0%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Crosby – Gibbons9:36
xG 0.67–0.18 (78%)attempts 10–4goals 1–0
- Glass – Sutter – Megna7:47
xG 0.29–0.10 (75%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Jokinen – Malkin – Neal11:25
xG 0.29–0.56 (34%)attempts 10–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestScuderi – Letang13:02
xG 0.74–0.24 (75%)attempts 13–8goals 1–0
- Orpik – Martin11:57
xG 0.59–0.49 (54%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Niskanen – Maatta11:06
xG 0.17–0.37 (32%)attempts 6–8goals 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.
PIT's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PIT 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, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 82% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).