Tue, Nov 1, 2016·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Buffalo Sabres 2, Minnesota Wild 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 58% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 19 | 07 | 18 | 224 |
| MIN | 06 | 115 | 07 | 128 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:16BUFRyan O'ReillyUnassisted · Wrist, 0.24 xG1–0
- P2 17:31MINMikael GranlundPPAssists: Eric Staal, Jason Pominville · Backhand, 0.32 xG1–1
- P3 13:34BUFJohan LarssonGWGAssists: Brian Gionta · Tip-in, 0.13 xG2–1
Penalties (2)
- P2 16:24BUFJosh Gorges: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P3 4:43MINChristoph Bertschy: 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.
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestEnnis – Girgensons – Reinhart10:47
xG 0.55–0.19 (74%)attempts 13–9goals 0–0
- Grant – Bailey – Baptiste6:46
xG 0.19–0.27 (42%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
- Gionta – Foligno – Larsson10:46
xG 0.34–0.44 (44%)attempts 3–10goals 1–0
- Moulson – Okposo – O'Reilly17:28
xG 0.45–0.58 (44%)attempts 9–19goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestFranson – Kulikov3:03
xG 0.36–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–1goals 1–0
- Bogosian – Kulikov5:40
xG 0.26–0.01 (95%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Franson – McCabe9:00
xG 0.13–0.12 (53%)attempts 9–6goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestStaal – Coyle – Niederreiter14:29
xG 0.50–0.25 (66%)attempts 14–6goals 0–0
- Schroeder – Graovac – Bertschy7:46
xG 0.42–0.18 (70%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Koivu – Pominville – Granlund15:49
xG 0.46–0.34 (57%)attempts 19–8goals 0–1
- Stewart – Zucker – Eriksson Ek10:57
xG 0.20–0.60 (25%)attempts 9–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Suter – Dumba20:34
xG 0.44–0.42 (51%)attempts 19–18goals 0–0
- Suter – Spurgeon4:12
xG 0.00–0.04 (0%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Brodin – Folin14:10
xG 0.65–0.74 (47%)attempts 21–10goals 0–1
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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 58% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).