Wed, Feb 5, 2014·First Niagara Center, Buffalo
Pittsburgh Penguins 5, Buffalo Sabres 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 67% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 113 | 215 | 26 | 534 |
| BUF | 111 | 09 | 05 | 125 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:58BUFDrew StaffordAssists: Tyler Ennis · Wrist, 0.26 xG0–1
- P1 15:01PITHarry ZolnierczykAssists: Craig Adams, Sidney Crosby · Wrist, 0.13 xG1–1
- P2 2:08PITSidney CrosbyPPGWGAssists: Matt Niskanen · Wrist, 0.20 xG2–1
- P2 17:48PITEvgeni MalkinUnassisted · Wrist, 0.18 xG3–1
- P3 5:22PITBrian GibbonsAssists: Brandon Sutter · Wrist, 0.02 xG4–1
- P3 12:12PITJames NealAssists: Evgeni Malkin, Brooks Orpik · Wrist, 0.06 xG5–1
Penalties (9)
- P1 3:14BUFAlexander Sulzer: Tripping2 min
- P1 12:17BUFJohn Scott: Fighting5 min
- P1 12:17PITDeryk Engelland: Fighting5 min
- P1 17:38PITMatt Niskanen: High sticking2 min
- P2 1:41BUFJamie McBain: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 4:08BUFMike Weber: Holding the stick2 min
- P2 19:24BUFJohn Scott: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P2 19:24PITTanner Glass: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 19:13BUFMatt Ellis: Boarding2 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 20:00Girgensons 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestJokinen – Malkin – Neal10:04
xG 0.68–0.23 (75%)attempts 12–6goals 2–0
- Sutter – Gibbons – Megna3:25
xG 0.25–0.03 (88%)attempts 5–3goals 1–0
- Glass – Sutter – Megna3:58
xG 0.34–0.13 (72%)attempts 6–6goals 0–0
- Kunitz – Crosby – Gibbons5:37
xG 0.18–0.12 (60%)attempts 7–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestNiskanen – Maatta13:22
xG 0.96–0.31 (75%)attempts 20–16goals 1–0
- Orpik – Martin12:51
xG 0.68–0.42 (62%)attempts 16–9goals 3–0
- Scuderi – Bortuzzo8:40
xG 0.11–0.23 (32%)attempts 3–10goals 0–0
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestOtt – D'Agostini – Hodgson10:49
xG 0.48–0.14 (78%)attempts 12–6goals 0–1
- Ellis – Scott – Varone8:24
xG 0.30–0.06 (83%)attempts 7–5goals 0–0
- Stafford – Omark – Ennis11:25
xG 0.71–0.51 (58%)attempts 15–12goals 1–1
- Foligno – Flynn – Girgensons10:43
xG 0.21–0.58 (27%)attempts 6–12goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestEhrhoff – Sulzer16:58
xG 0.80–0.37 (68%)attempts 21–13goals 0–2
- Tallinder – Ruhwedel16:12
xG 0.65–0.82 (44%)attempts 15–17goals 1–0
- Weber – McBain12:43
xG 0.13–0.74 (15%)attempts 8–13goals 0–2
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 PIT. 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 67% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BUF − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).