Thu, Oct 27, 2016·KeyBank Center, Buffalo
Minnesota Wild 4, Buffalo Sabres 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Buffalo Sabres win this game 66% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 213 | 04 | 25 | 422 |
| BUF | 08 | 019 | 011 | 038 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:51MINJoel Eriksson EkGWGAssists: Nate Prosser, Marco Scandella · Wrist, 0.03 xG1–0
- P1 15:13MINJason ZuckerAssists: Chris Stewart, Ryan Suter · Backhand, 0.08 xG2–0
- P3 2:58MINRyan SuterAssists: Zach Parise, Christian Folin · Wrist, 0.02 xG3–0
- P3 18:51MINMikko KoivuENAssists: Eric Staal, Charlie Coyle · Wrist, 0.72 xG4–0
Penalties (4)
- P1 12:29BUFRasmus Ristolainen: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P2 3:50MINTeemu Pulkkinen: Hooking2 min
- P2 15:07MINJonas Brodin: High sticking2 min
- P3 7:10BUFZach Bogosian: Hooking2 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 20:00O'Reilly won the faceoff against Koivu
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- Staal – Coyle – Niederreiter11:21
xG 0.12–0.34 (26%)attempts 8–10goals 0–0
- Koivu – Parise – Granlund13:43
xG 0.46–0.74 (38%)attempts 11–12goals 1–0
- Stewart – Zucker – Eriksson Ek9:35
xG 0.18–0.58 (24%)attempts 6–12goals 1–0
- Pominville – Dalpe – Pulkkinen8:31
xG 0.04–0.74 (5%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Prosser3:37
xG 0.25–0.08 (76%)attempts 3–2goals 1–0
- Prosser – Dumba2:24
xG 0.08–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Dumba – Folin3:56
xG 0.07–0.02 (81%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestMoulson – Okposo – O'Reilly14:48
xG 0.85–0.31 (73%)attempts 13–6goals 0–1
- Ennis – Girgensons – Reinhart9:08
xG 0.64–0.12 (84%)attempts 14–6goals 0–1
- Grant – Deslauriers – Fasching5:56
xG 0.53–0.05 (92%)attempts 5–5goals 0–1
- Gionta – Foligno – Larsson11:02
xG 0.14–0.28 (34%)attempts 7–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBogosian – Kulikov16:43
xG 1.39–0.37 (79%)attempts 22–11goals 0–1
- Gorges – Ristolainen19:13
xG 0.92–0.31 (75%)attempts 12–10goals 0–0
- Bogosian – McCabe2:33
xG 0.17–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 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.
BUF's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line BUF is favoured, below it MIN. 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, Buffalo Sabres win this game 66% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BUF − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).