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

MIN

Minnesota Wild

2-0-0

BUF

Buffalo Sabres

1-1-0

Has last change

Tuesday, October 6

7:00 PM ET · KeyBank Center

The short version

Before the game

Turnovers could swing this one

The Sabres are 1-1-0. The Wild have won two in a row. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Buffalo has home ice. Minnesota can still swing it if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Sabres are 1-1-0. The Wild have won two in a row. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Buffalo has home ice. Minnesota can tip it if they pounce on loose pucks.

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

Who to watch

  • Owns themQuinn Hughes has a point in five straight games against Buffalo.
  • Leads the wayOwen Power leads the Sabres with three points.

  1. Turnovers could swing this one

    The Sabres give up more dangerous chances after losing the puck than most, and the Wild pounce.

    The call The Wild get at least their usual 7.5% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Minnesota 9th for chances off turnovers (7.5% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · Buffalo 23rd for avoiding breakdowns

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

  2. The Sabres hunt better looks than the Wild

    On shot quality, Buffalo is near the top of the league and Minnesota is near the bottom of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Sabres’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Wild’s.

    Shot quality: Buffalo 10th, Minnesota 23rd

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 2 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 Minnesota and Buffalo play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Minnesota WildBuffalo 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 2 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 2 games for Minnesota, 2 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

    • Minnesota: 57.6 shot attempts per 6012th of 32

      Minnesota: 57.3 shot attempts per 6014th of 32

    • Buffalo: 56.7 shot attempts per 6015th of 32

      Buffalo: 56.5 shot attempts per 6017th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Minnesota: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot23rd of 32

      Minnesota: a 5.2% chance of scoring on the average shot29th of 32

    • Buffalo: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot10th of 32

      Buffalo: a 7.2% chance of scoring on the average shot7th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Minnesota: 10.6% of chances come from rebounds2nd of 32

      Minnesota: 6.7% of chances come from rebounds23rd of 32

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

      Buffalo: 1.7% of chances come from rebounds31st of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Minnesota: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover9th of 32

      Minnesota: 7.3% of chances come right after a turnover16th of 32

    • Buffalo: 6.7% of chances come right after a turnover30th of 32

      Buffalo: 1.5% of chances come right after a turnover28th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Minnesota: 29.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen32nd of 32

      Minnesota: 21.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen32nd of 32

    • Buffalo: 32.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen24th of 32

      Buffalo: 25.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen31st of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Minnesota: 31.8% of shots come from within 20 feet5th of 32

      Minnesota: 31.3% of shots come from within 20 feet17th of 32

    • Buffalo: 30.6% of shots come from within 20 feet13th of 32

      Buffalo: 32.9% of shots come from within 20 feet10th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Minnesota: 57.5 shot attempts allowed per 6019th of 32

      Minnesota: 44.7 shot attempts allowed per 604th of 32

    • Buffalo: 53.8 shot attempts allowed per 6010th of 32

      Buffalo: 38.4 shot attempts allowed per 601st of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Minnesota: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against1st of 32

      Minnesota: a 5.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against3rd of 32

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

      Buffalo: a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against25th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Minnesota: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 604th of 32

      Minnesota: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Buffalo: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6023rd of 32

      Buffalo: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Minnesota: +0.18 goals saved above expected per 606th of 32

      Minnesota: +1.14 goals saved above expected per 607th of 32

    • Buffalo: +0.11 goals saved above expected per 6015th of 32

      Buffalo: −1.75 goals saved above expected per 6029th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Minnesota: 84.4 shots per 60, both teams combined6th of 32

      Minnesota: 78.7 shots per 60, both teams combined18th of 32

    • Buffalo: 82.8 shots per 60, both teams combined15th of 32

      Buffalo: 72.6 shots per 60, both teams combined27th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Minnesota: forecheck score 105 (100 is league average)9th of 32Minnesota: 23.7 forecheck plays recorded per 609th of 32

      Minnesota: forecheck score 99 (100 is league average)17th of 32Minnesota: 24.9 forecheck plays recorded per 6016th of 32

    • Buffalo: forecheck score 99 (100 is league average)18th of 32Buffalo: 22.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6020th of 32

      Buffalo: forecheck score 104 (100 is league average)14th of 32Buffalo: 25.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6015th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Minnesota: hit score 97 (100 is league average)19th of 32Minnesota: 25.4 hits recorded per 6020th of 32

      Minnesota: hit score 81 (100 is league average)25th of 32Minnesota: 24.0 hits recorded per 6026th of 32

    • Buffalo: hit score 95 (100 is league average)21st of 32Buffalo: 25.2 hits recorded per 6021st of 32

      Buffalo: hit score 101 (100 is league average)17th of 32Buffalo: 29.8 hits recorded per 6018th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Minnesota: 42.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six11th of 32

      Minnesota: 46.0% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six1st of 32

    • Buffalo: 41.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six18th of 32

      Buffalo: 40.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six28th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Minnesota: 7.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play15th of 32

      Minnesota: 10.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play4th of 32

    • Buffalo: 7.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play22nd of 32

      Buffalo: 5.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play21st of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Minnesota: 7.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded22nd of 32

      Minnesota: 6.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded18th of 32

    • Buffalo: 7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

      Buffalo: 6.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Minnesota: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded30th of 32

      Minnesota: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded10th of 32

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

      Buffalo: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Minnesota: 0.21 more penalties drawn than taken per 603rd of 32

      Minnesota: 0.50 more penalties taken than drawn per 6019th of 32

    • Buffalo: 0.12 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th 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 2 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.

Minnesota Wild

Buffalo Sabres

Who Buffalo is likely to send against whom

Each strip shows how one Buffalo group’s 5-on-5 time at home has been split across opponents’ four forward lines. Tonight those lines are Minnesota’s, named in each box.

Minnesota’s lines tonightL1 Foligno · Foligno · McCarronL2 Coleman · Eriksson Ek · BoldyL3 Hartman · Trenin · BrinkL4 Kaprizov · Yurov · Shabanov

Buffalo forward lines against Minnesota forward lines

  • L1Quinn · Ostlund · BensonMIN L140%MIN L249%MIN L34%MIN L48%
  • L2Thompson · Norris · DoanMIN L148%MIN L213%MIN L326%MIN L413%
  • L3McLeod · Krebs · HeleniusMIN L18%MIN L219%MIN L337%MIN L437%
  • L4Carrick · Malenstyn · KulichMIN L14%MIN L240%MIN L345%MIN L411%

Buffalo defense pairs against Minnesota forward lines

  • P1Samuelsson · DahlinMIN L125%MIN L238%MIN L325%MIN L412%
  • P2Power · ZellwegerMIN L130%MIN L222%MIN L332%MIN L416%
  • P3Crevier · MetsaMIN L144%MIN L215%MIN L39%MIN L432%

Based on 1 Buffalo home game this season, so treat it as a habit forming, not a certainty. Faded rows have under ten minutes. With no line matching, each group would face an opposing line about as often as that line is on the ice; a number well above that means the coach is sending that group out against it on purpose.

Special teams

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

Show

Minnesota power play against Buffalo penalty kill

  • Minnesota power play

    7.5 expected goals per 60 · 15th of 32

  • Buffalo penalty kill

    7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 · 14th of 32

Minnesota power play

PP182% of the time

Creates 7.4 expected goals per 60

  • Q. HughesQuarterback
  • K. KaprizovTrigger
  • M. BoldyDistributor
  • J. Eriksson EkNet-front
  • M. Shabanov

PP218% of the time

Creates 7.5 expected goals per 60

  • J. SpurgeonQuarterback
  • R. HartmanTrigger
  • B. Brink
  • B. Coleman
  • D. Yurov

 

Where Minnesota’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

J. Wallstedt35 starts · 1068 shots, this season and last

+17.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.983 531 shots
Medium-danger save %
.889 396 shots
High-danger save %
.745 141 shots
Shots faced per 60
30.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.31
Quality starts
74%

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 chancesJ. WallstedtU. Luukkonen

U. Luukkonen36 starts · 968 shots, this season and last

+7.6 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.978 492 shots
Medium-danger save %
.871 342 shots
High-danger save %
.716 134 shots
Shots faced per 60
27.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.39
Quality starts
61%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Wallstedt: +17.7 goals saved above expected in 35 starts
    • U. Luukkonen: +7.6 goals saved above expected in 36 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Wallstedt: 30.3 shots faced per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 27.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Wallstedt: the average shot he faces has a 6.7% 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
    • J. Wallstedt: 0.31 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 0.39 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Wallstedt: a typical wait of 68 seconds between shots
    • U. Luukkonen: a typical wait of 75 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Wallstedt: a quality start 74% of the time
    • U. Luukkonen: a quality start 61% of the time

J. Wallstedt, 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)

J. Wallstedt2 starts · 47 shots, this season

+2.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.960 25 shots
Medium-danger save %
.941 17 shots
High-danger save %
1.000 5 shots
Shots faced per 60
23.7
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 chancesJ. WallstedtU. Luukkonen

U. Luukkonen2 starts · 37 shots, this season

−3.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 14 shots
Medium-danger save %
.733 15 shots
High-danger save %
.500 8 shots
Shots faced per 60
18.6
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
0%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Wallstedt: +2.3 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
    • U. Luukkonen: −3.5 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Wallstedt: 23.7 shots faced per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 18.6 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Wallstedt: the average shot he faces has a 5.8% chance of going in
    • U. Luukkonen: the average shot he faces has a 7.5% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Wallstedt: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Wallstedt: a typical wait of 84 seconds between shots
    • U. Luukkonen: a typical wait of 146 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Wallstedt: a quality start 100% of the time
    • U. Luukkonen: a quality start 0% of the time

J. Wallstedt, 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
MinnesotaBuffaloLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play53.5%59.8%
  • Power play23.4%17.2%
  • Rebound4.7%3.9%
  • Empty net7.6%9.4%
  • Off a turnover4.4%4.2%
  • Goalie pulled1.9%1.5%
  • Shorthanded2.2%2.7%
  • Off a faceoff win2.2%1.2%

316 Minnesota goals and 331 Buffalo goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play28.6%85.7%
  • Power play42.9%0%
  • Rebound14.3%0%
  • Empty net14.3%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%14.3%

7 Minnesota goals and 7 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: Minnesota Wild · Buffalo Sabres