Fri, Nov 22, 2024·Honda Center, Anaheim
Buffalo Sabres 3, Anaheim Ducks 2 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Buffalo Sabres win this game 71% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 012 | 29 | 08 | 14 | 333 |
| ANA | 16 | 18 | 010 | 00 | 224 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 4:02ANADrew HellesonAssists: Trevor Zegras, Leo Carlsson · Snap, 0.06 xG0–1
- P2 14:07ANAIsac LundeströmAssists: Ross Johnston, Olen Zellweger · Tip-in, 0.10 xG0–2
- P2 18:37BUFAlex TuchUnassisted · Other, 1.00 xG1–2
- P2 19:27BUFJason ZuckerAssists: Owen Power · Wrist, 0.14 xG2–2
- OT 4:00BUFJiri KulichGWGAssists: Owen Power, Alex Tuch · Wrist, 0.13 xG3–2
Penalties (8)
- P1 11:34BUFJason Zucker: Roughing removing opponents helmet2 min
- P1 14:15ANABrett Leason: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P2 8:14ANARadko Gudas: Fighting5 min
- P2 8:14BUFConnor Clifton: Fighting5 min
- P2 12:01BUFZach Benson: Roughing2 min
- P2 12:01ANAJansen Harkins: Roughing2 min
- P2 12:01BUFZach Benson: Roughing2 min
- P2 19:34ANAAlex Killorn: Roughing2 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 20:00Harkins won the faceoff against Krebs
- 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
- bestZucker – Quinn – Kulich5:24
xG 0.75–0.00 (100%)attempts 10–1goals 0–0
- Krebs – Cozens – Benson2:57
xG 0.43–0.09 (83%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Quinn – Peterka – Kulich5:45
xG 0.32–0.21 (60%)attempts 8–3goals 0–0
- Aube-Kubel – Malenstyn – Krebs5:47
xG 0.16–0.22 (42%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestJokiharju – Power12:47
xG 1.84–0.55 (77%)attempts 16–8goals 1–0
- Byram – Power2:50
xG 0.72–0.06 (92%)attempts 6–1goals 0–0
- Dahlin – Byram16:18
xG 0.45–0.83 (35%)attempts 16–12goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestStrome – Vatrano – Terry12:13
xG 0.88–0.45 (66%)attempts 13–23goals 0–0
- Lundeström – Leason – Gauthier11:27
xG 0.53–0.24 (69%)attempts 12–5goals 0–0
- Killorn – Zegras – Carlsson12:49
xG 0.60–0.77 (44%)attempts 10–10goals 1–0
- Johnston – Harkins – Colangelo8:20
xG 0.14–0.73 (16%)attempts 5–15goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestDumoulin – Helleson14:03
xG 0.67–0.42 (61%)attempts 20–13goals 1–1
- LaCombe – Zellweger14:23
xG 0.78–0.64 (55%)attempts 14–6goals 0–0
- Gudas – Mintyukov14:38
xG 0.40–2.04 (16%)attempts 6–28goals 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.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA 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, Buffalo Sabres win this game 71% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).