Sat, Nov 1, 2014·CONSOL Energy Center, Pittsburgh
Buffalo Sabres 0, Pittsburgh Penguins 5
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 76% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 03 | 09 | 06 | 018 |
| PIT | 112 | 211 | 211 | 534 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:26PITChris KunitzGWGAssists: Patric Hornqvist, Sidney Crosby · Wrist, 0.21 xG0–1
- P2 11:54PITBlake ComeauAssists: Evgeni Malkin, Pascal Dupuis · Wrist, 0.08 xG0–2
- P2 16:09PITPatric HornqvistPPAssists: Chris Kunitz, Evgeni Malkin · Wrist, 0.19 xG0–3
- P3 2:33PITChris KunitzPPAssists: Kris Letang, Sidney Crosby · Tip-in, 0.19 xG0–4
- P3 13:11PITEvgeni MalkinPPAssists: Sidney Crosby, Christian Ehrhoff · Slap, 0.03 xG0–5
Penalties (9)
- P1 12:40PITOlli Maatta: Holding the stick2 min
- P2 13:34PITSidney Crosby: Hooking2 min
- P2 14:50BUFCody Hodgson: Too many men on the ice2 min · PPG
- P2 0:00PITBlake Comeau: Roughing2 min
- P3 2:00BUFMike Weber: Roughing2 min · PPG
- P3 3:35BUFNicolas Deslauriers: Hooking2 min
- P3 10:32PITCraig Adams: Holding2 min
- P3 12:22BUFTyler Ennis: Interference2 min · PPG
- P3 16:18BUFZemgus Girgensons: Interference2 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.
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- McCormick – Deslauriers – Flynn9:04
xG 0.07–0.03 (68%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Gionta – Mitchell – Girgensons9:44
xG 0.28–0.42 (40%)attempts 7–12goals 0–1
- Stewart – Hodgson – Foligno10:56
xG 0.30–0.46 (40%)attempts 7–11goals 0–0
- Moulson – Stafford – Ennis9:18
xG 0.11–0.27 (29%)attempts 7–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Strachan – Weber13:54
xG 0.31–0.26 (54%)attempts 7–9goals 0–0
- Gorges – Myers12:47
xG 0.35–0.52 (40%)attempts 9–19goals 0–1
- Benoit – Ristolainen15:36
xG 0.19–0.52 (27%)attempts 11–15goals 0–1
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestKunitz – Crosby – Hornqvist9:44
xG 0.58–0.09 (87%)attempts 21–6goals 1–0
- Adams – Malkin – Sill2:00
xG 0.11–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Downie – Sutter – Spaling11:32
xG 0.28–0.25 (53%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
- Adams – Goc – Sill2:59
xG 0.10–0.07 (57%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Maatta12:53
xG 0.78–0.24 (76%)attempts 21–5goals 2–0
- Martin – Ehrhoff14:25
xG 0.37–0.27 (58%)attempts 19–10goals 0–0
- Scuderi – Despres16:32
xG 0.10–0.32 (23%)attempts 7–9goals 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 76% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PIT − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).