Sat, Oct 25, 2014·SAP Center at San Jose, San Jose
Buffalo Sabres 2, San Jose Sharks 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 63% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 07 | 02 | 26 | 215 |
| SJS | 05 | 09 | 116 | 130 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 3:43BUFCody HodgsonAssists: Drew Stafford, Zemgus Girgensons · Backhand, 0.17 xG1–0
- P3 5:57BUFNicolas DeslauriersGWGAssists: Cody McCormick, Sam Reinhart · Wrist, 0.35 xG2–0
- P3 6:10SJSBrent BurnsUnassisted · Wrist, 0.01 xG2–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 19:04SJSAndrew Desjardins: Interference2 min
- P2 11:51BUFRasmus Ristolainen: Interference2 min
- P2 18:45SJSScott Hannan: Tripping2 min
- P2 19:57BUFTyler Ennis: Interference2 min
- P3 0:24SJSTommy Wingels: Holding the stick2 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 Marleau
- 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
- bestMoulson – Stewart – Ennis13:04
xG 0.40–0.31 (56%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
- Gionta – Mitchell – Girgensons13:27
xG 0.33–0.35 (49%)attempts 13–16goals 0–0
- McCormick – Deslauriers – Reinhart8:44
xG 0.51–0.65 (44%)attempts 7–11goals 1–0
- Stafford – Hodgson – Foligno7:16
xG 0.00–0.42 (0%)attempts 0–11goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestBenoit – Ristolainen14:23
xG 0.36–0.27 (57%)attempts 13–20goals 0–0
- Meszaros – Weber11:29
xG 0.77–0.86 (47%)attempts 8–16goals 1–0
- Weber – Ristolainen2:24
xG 0.00–0.21 (0%)attempts 0–6goals 0–0
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestMarleau – Sheppard – Couture12:44
xG 0.81–0.29 (74%)attempts 21–5goals 0–0
- Wingels – Nieto – Tierney11:54
xG 0.61–0.33 (65%)attempts 15–11goals 1–1
- Thornton – Pavelski – Hertl12:33
xG 0.39–0.52 (43%)attempts 16–7goals 0–1
- Burish – Desjardins – Scott5:02
xG 0.11–0.25 (31%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestVlasic – Braun15:46
xG 0.74–0.27 (73%)attempts 20–7goals 0–0
- Burns – Mueller15:46
xG 0.49–0.40 (55%)attempts 20–10goals 1–0
- Hannan – Irwin14:43
xG 0.41–0.73 (36%)attempts 14–11goals 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.
SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS 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, San Jose Sharks win this game 63% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).