Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
at

CHI

Chicago Blackhawks

0-2-0

BUF

Buffalo Sabres

0-1-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 3

7:00 PM ET · KeyBank Center

The short version

Before the game

Byram returns to Buffalo

The Blackhawks come in at 0-2-0, the Sabres at 0-1-0. Buffalo has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Chicago can make a game of it if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Blackhawks come in at 0-2-0, the Sabres at 0-1-0. Buffalo has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Chicago could still pull it off if they pounce on loose pucks, but they might need a miracle.

The Blackhawks pounce on loose pucks, and the Sabres cough them up. The Sabres and the Blackhawks sit at opposite ends for shot suppression.

Who to watch

  • Old teamBowen Byram faces Buffalo for the first time since leaving.
  • Old teamLouis Crevier faces Chicago for the first time since leaving.
  • Haunts themPatrick Kane has six goals in nine games against Buffalo since 2023-24, most of them with Detroit.

  1. The Sabres can’t afford to cough it up

    The Blackhawks turn stolen pucks into chances, and the Sabres are near the bottom of the league at avoiding breakdowns. A sloppy pass or two could cost the Sabres.

    The call The Blackhawks get at least their usual 7.6% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Chicago 8th for chances off turnovers (7.6% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · Buffalo 26th for avoiding breakdowns

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 1 games this season

  2. One stingy defense, one leaky one

    On shot suppression, Buffalo is around the middle of the league and Chicago is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Sabres allow fewer 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Blackhawks.

    Shot suppression: Buffalo 12th, Chicago 30th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 1 games this season

These calls are written by fixed rules from the numbers below, and saved as they stand at puck drop. After the game, each one will be checked against what happened.

Style fingerprints

How Chicago and Buffalo play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Chicago BlackhawksBuffalo SabresLeague averageLikely range

Each scale runs from the league’s lowest team on the left to its highest on the right. Numbers blend last season with the 2 and 1 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 2 games for Chicago, 1 for Buffalo. Expect these to swing a lot, which is why the likely ranges are so wide.

The biggest differences

Show all 18 traitsHide the full set

Offense

  • Shot volume
    SelectiveRelentless

    • Chicago: 47.9 shot attempts per 6031st of 32

      Chicago: 44.1 shot attempts per 6027th of 32

    • Buffalo: 55.0 shot attempts per 6019th of 32

      Buffalo: 48.5 shot attempts per 6024th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Chicago: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot24th of 32

      Chicago: a 5.0% chance of scoring on the average shot26th of 32

    • Buffalo: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot13th of 32

      Buffalo: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot13th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Chicago: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds13th of 32

      Chicago: 13.3% of chances come from rebounds7th of 32

    • Buffalo: 9.9% of chances come from rebounds30th of 32

      Buffalo: 1.5% of chances come from rebounds27th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Chicago: 7.6% of chances come right after a turnover8th of 32

      Chicago: 0.2% of chances come right after a turnover29th of 32

    • Buffalo: 6.7% of chances come right after a turnover29th of 32

      Buffalo: 3.3% of chances come right after a turnover24th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Chicago: 35.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen15th of 32

      Chicago: 30.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen22nd of 32

    • Buffalo: 33.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen20th of 32

      Buffalo: 27.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen24th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Chicago: 26.5% of shots come from within 20 feet32nd of 32

      Chicago: 23.0% of shots come from within 20 feet27th of 32

    • Buffalo: 30.3% of shots come from within 20 feet16th of 32

      Buffalo: 28.6% of shots come from within 20 feet19th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Chicago: 61.7 shot attempts allowed per 6030th of 32

      Chicago: 70.4 shot attempts allowed per 6030th of 32

    • Buffalo: 55.2 shot attempts allowed per 6012th of 32

      Buffalo: 37.1 shot attempts allowed per 602nd of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Chicago: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against22nd of 32

      Chicago: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against19th of 32

    • Buffalo: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against14th of 32

      Buffalo: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against20th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Chicago: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 607th of 32

      Chicago: 1.18 defensive breakdowns per 6027th of 32

    • Buffalo: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6026th of 32

      Buffalo: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Chicago: +0.07 goals saved above expected per 6022nd of 32

      Chicago: −1.27 goals saved above expected per 6024th of 32

    • Buffalo: +0.12 goals saved above expected per 6014th of 32

      Buffalo: −2.85 goals saved above expected per 6028th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Chicago: 83.1 shots per 60, both teams combined11th of 32

      Chicago: 90.2 shots per 60, both teams combined5th of 32

    • Buffalo: 82.8 shots per 60, both teams combined14th of 32

      Buffalo: 62.4 shots per 60, both teams combined28th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Chicago: forecheck score 81 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Chicago: 17.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Chicago: forecheck score 79 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Chicago: 20.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6025th of 32

    • Buffalo: forecheck score 99 (100 is league average)16th of 32Buffalo: 21.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6019th of 32

      Buffalo: forecheck score 105 (100 is league average)13th of 32Buffalo: 25.2 forecheck plays recorded per 6016th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Chicago: hit score 74 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Chicago: 19.0 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Chicago: hit score 57 (100 is league average)27th of 32Chicago: 18.6 hits recorded per 6030th of 32

    • Buffalo: hit score 91 (100 is league average)21st of 32Buffalo: 23.9 hits recorded per 6022nd of 32

      Buffalo: hit score 87 (100 is league average)18th of 32Buffalo: 26.2 hits recorded per 6022nd of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Chicago: 41.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six24th of 32

      Chicago: 43.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six15th of 32

    • Buffalo: 42.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six18th of 32

      Buffalo: 41.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six23rd of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Chicago: 6.1 expected goals per 60 on the power play32nd of 32

      Chicago: 2.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play29th of 32

    • Buffalo: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play20th of 32

      Buffalo: 7.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play12th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Chicago: 7.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded18th of 32

      Chicago: 7.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded23rd of 32

    • Buffalo: 7.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded17th of 32

      Buffalo: 10.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Chicago: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded17th of 32

      Chicago: 2.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded3rd of 32

    • Buffalo: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

      Buffalo: 1.3 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded9th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Chicago: 0.08 more penalties taken than drawn per 6025th of 32

      Chicago: 0.50 more penalties taken than drawn per 6020th of 32

    • Buffalo: 0.11 more penalties drawn than taken per 609th of 32

      Buffalo: 1.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th of 32

Forecheck pressure and physicality are arena-adjusted scores; switch “Hits and takeaways” to Raw in the settings to see the numbers as recorded. How the arena adjustment works.

Lines and deployment

Buffalo is at home, so their coach changes last and chooses who plays against whom.

How good, against the same line or pair on other teamsHow much, low to high (not good or bad)

Lines and pairs are numbered by 5-on-5 ice time together over each team’s last 10 games (2 and 1 so far), with each older game counting half as much as the one after it, so the latest combinations come first. With so few games, each group’s results are pulled toward the average for its line number.

Chicago Blackhawks

Buffalo Sabres

Who Buffalo is likely to send against whom

Buffalo has not played at home yet this season, so there is no matching habit to show.

Special teams

Each power play set against the penalty killers it will face.

Show

Chicago power play against Buffalo penalty kill

  • Chicago power play

    6.1 expected goals per 60 · 32nd of 32

  • Buffalo penalty kill

    7.6 expected goals allowed per 60 · 17th of 32

Chicago power play

PP179% of the time

Creates 5.9 expected goals per 60

  • B. ByramQuarterback
  • P. Kane
  • R. Kantserov
  • T. BertuzziTrigger
  • A. Frondell

PP221% of the time

Creates 6.3 expected goals per 60

  • S. RinzelQuarterback
  • F. NazarTrigger
  • N. Lardis
  • O. Moore
  • R. Donato

 

Where Chicago’s last 140 power-play shots came from. Bigger dots are more dangerous.

Buffalo penalty kill

Starts the kill

Second wave

Spot duty

Units and penalty-kill roles use each team’s last 10 games; power-play role tags use this season and last, counting only games with the player’s current team; the map shows the last 140 power-play shots. Point at a power-play name to see his shots on the map.

Goaltending

Is each goalie stopping more than he should, and what is his team asking him to face?

Showagainst

S. Knight56 starts · 1619 shots, this season and last

+14.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.980 804 shots
Medium-danger save %
.857 582 shots
High-danger save %
.742 233 shots
Shots faced per 60
29
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.39
Quality starts
52%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesS. KnightA. SoderblomU. Luukkonen

U. Luukkonen35 starts · 953 shots, this season and last

+8.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.977 487 shots
Medium-danger save %
.875 335 shots
High-danger save %
.718 131 shots
Shots faced per 60
27.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.4
Quality starts
63%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • S. Knight: +14.9 goals saved above expected in 56 starts
    • U. Luukkonen: +8.3 goals saved above expected in 35 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Knight: 29 shots faced per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 27.4 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • S. Knight: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
    • U. Luukkonen: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • S. Knight: 0.39 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 0.4 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
    • U. Luukkonen: a typical wait of 74 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Knight: a quality start 52% of the time
    • U. Luukkonen: a quality start 63% of the time

S. Knight, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

U. Luukkonen, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Knight1 start · 36 shots, this season

−0.6 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 16 shots
Medium-danger save %
.882 17 shots
High-danger save %
.333 3 shots
Shots faced per 60
36.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
100%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesS. KnightA. SoderblomU. Luukkonen

U. Luukkonen1 start · 22 shots, this season

−2.8 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 9 shots
Medium-danger save %
.750 8 shots
High-danger save %
.400 5 shots
Shots faced per 60
22.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
0%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • S. Knight: −0.6 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
    • U. Luukkonen: −2.8 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Knight: 36.1 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • U. Luukkonen: 22.3 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • S. Knight: the average shot he faces has a 6.9% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
    • U. Luukkonen: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • S. Knight: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • U. Luukkonen: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 67 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
    • U. Luukkonen: a typical wait of 95 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Knight: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)
    • U. Luukkonen: a quality start 0% of the time (too few starts to place)

S. Knight, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

U. Luukkonen, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

The menus list every goalie on each team, busiest this season first; the site does not yet know who will start. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie whose team gives up many cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really is.

Where the goals come from

How each team’s goals are scored, or allowed, against the league average.

Show goals
ChicagoBuffaloLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play59.4%59.6%
  • Power play18.4%17.4%
  • Rebound8%4%
  • Empty net4.2%9.5%
  • Off a turnover4.7%4.3%
  • Goalie pulled0.5%1.5%
  • Shorthanded2.4%2.8%
  • Off a faceoff win2.4%0.9%

212 Chicago goals and 327 Buffalo goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play100%100%
  • Power play0%0%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

2 Chicago goals and 3 Buffalo goals scored this season. Each row has its own scale.

These mixes are mostly luck: over three seasons, teams’ goals came from much the same places, and most of the differences here didn’t last. Each team page shows how much luck alone can move each row.

Data notes

Team pages: Chicago Blackhawks · Buffalo Sabres