Fri, Jan 9, 2015·Amalie Arena, Tampa
Buffalo Sabres 1, Tampa Bay Lightning 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 92% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 08 | 15 | 08 | 121 |
| TBL | 18 | 027 | 112 | 247 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:51TBLValtteri FilppulaAssists: Ryan Callahan, Cedric Paquette · Wrist, 0.25 xG0–1
- P2 0:50BUFCody McCormickSHAssists: Patrick Kaleta · Wrist, 0.10 xG1–1
- P3 14:42TBLSteven StamkosGWGAssists: Jonathan Drouin, Alex Killorn · Wrist, 0.07 xG1–2
Penalties (7)
- P1 9:15BUFTyler Myers: Illegal check to head2 min
- P1 13:49BUFTyler Ennis: Roughing2 min
- P1 16:02TBLBrenden Morrow: Tripping2 min
- P1 0:00BUFTyler Myers: Roughing2 min
- P3 11:30TBLNikita Nesterov: Tripping2 min
- P3 16:42BUFTyler Ennis: High sticking2 min
- P3 19:56TBLAlex Killorn: 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 20:00Filppula won the faceoff against Girgensons
- 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
- Moulson – Ennis – Girgensons2:02
xG 0.18–0.16 (53%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Hodgson – Deslauriers – Grigorenko9:01
xG 0.04–0.34 (10%)attempts 5–7goals 0–0
- Moulson – Stewart – Varone9:20
xG 0.08–0.51 (14%)attempts 6–13goals 0–0
- McCormick – Stafford – Kaleta6:35
xG 0.07–0.89 (7%)attempts 4–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Meszaros – Weber14:28
xG 0.19–0.59 (25%)attempts 9–20goals 0–0
- Benoit – Ristolainen10:31
xG 0.28–1.15 (20%)attempts 12–16goals 0–0
- Gorges – Myers17:11
xG 0.25–1.50 (14%)attempts 9–21goals 0–2
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestFilppula – Callahan – Paquette11:28
xG 1.22–0.02 (98%)attempts 18–5goals 1–0
- Killorn – Stamkos – Drouin8:49
xG 1.13–0.14 (89%)attempts 17–6goals 1–0
- Johnson – Palat – Kucherov12:10
xG 0.61–0.11 (85%)attempts 18–4goals 0–0
- Morrow – Boyle – Connolly5:27
xG 0.21–0.15 (58%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCarle – Nesterov12:10
xG 1.78–0.14 (93%)attempts 25–3goals 1–0
- Stralman – Hedman14:57
xG 0.91–0.19 (83%)attempts 19–7goals 1–0
- Garrison – Sustr13:38
xG 0.79–0.22 (79%)attempts 15–16goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL 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, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 92% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).