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

UTA

Utah Mammoth

3-2-0

BUF

Buffalo Sabres

2-2-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 10

7:00 PM ET · KeyBank Center

The short version

Before the game

Strength against strength

The Mammoth come in at 3-2-0, the Sabres at 2-2-0. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Buffalo has home ice. Utah can still swing it if their penalty kill holds up.

The Mammoth come in at 3-2-0, the Sabres at 2-2-0. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Buffalo has home ice. Utah can tip it if their penalty kill holds up.

It’s strength against strength: the Mammoth for shot volume, the Sabres at keeping shots away. At home, Lindy Ruff likes to pick matchups, so watch who goes out against the Mammoth’s first line.

Who to watch

  • Owns themClayton Keller has a point in five straight games against Buffalo.
  • Still outJason Zucker hasn’t played yet this season.
  • Slow startLogan Cooley is still looking for his first goal of the season.
  • Old teamJosh Doan faces his old team, Utah.

  1. Strength against strength

    The Mammoth are one of the league’s best for shot volume, and the Sabres are near the top of the league at keeping shots away. Our lean: the Mammoth’s shot volume wins out.

    The call The Mammoth take more than the league-average 56.4 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 against the Sabres.

    Utah 2nd for shot volume (66.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Buffalo 6th for keeping shots away

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 4 games this season

  2. Something has to give

    The Mammoth are one of the league’s best for chance quality, and the Sabres are near the top of the league at preventing dangerous shots. We think the Mammoth still get theirs.

    The call The Mammoth’s chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Sabres.

    Utah 5th for chance quality (a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Buffalo 8th for preventing dangerous shots

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 4 games this season

  3. The Sabres want Benson head to head with Keller

    At home, the Sabres keep sending Benson’s line (Quinn, Ostlund and Benson) out against opponents’ first lines, far more often than chance would. Strength on strength, and Lindy Ruff is choosing it. Tonight the Mammoth’s first line is Trocheck, Schmaltz and Keller.

    The call The Sabres’ L1 (Quinn, Ostlund and Benson) spends at least 37% of its 5-on-5 time against the Mammoth’s first line.

    At home: 37% of this group’s 5-on-5 time against first lines, about 26% with no line matching

    Who plays against whom · Buffalo home games this season · 3 games, 41 minutes for this group at 5-on-5

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 Utah and Buffalo play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Utah MammothBuffalo 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 5 and 4 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 5 games for Utah, 4 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

    • Utah: 66.6 shot attempts per 602nd of 32

      Utah: 71.2 shot attempts per 601st of 32

    • Buffalo: 57.0 shot attempts per 6015th of 32

      Buffalo: 57.1 shot attempts per 6012th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Utah: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

      Utah: a 7.1% chance of scoring on the average shot8th of 32

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

      Buffalo: a 7.0% chance of scoring on the average shot9th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Utah: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

      Utah: 12.0% of chances come from rebounds12th of 32

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

      Buffalo: 7.8% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Utah: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover11th of 32

      Utah: 12.1% of chances come right after a turnover7th of 32

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

      Buffalo: 4.0% of chances come right after a turnover28th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Utah: 34.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen18th of 32

      Utah: 38.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen3rd of 32

    • Buffalo: 32.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen24th of 32

      Buffalo: 29.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen30th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Utah: 31.9% of shots come from within 20 feet4th of 32

      Utah: 36.5% of shots come from within 20 feet4th of 32

    • Buffalo: 31.0% of shots come from within 20 feet11th of 32

      Buffalo: 34.0% of shots come from within 20 feet8th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Utah: 51.5 shot attempts allowed per 604th of 32

      Utah: 48.4 shot attempts allowed per 606th of 32

    • Buffalo: 52.3 shot attempts allowed per 606th of 32

      Buffalo: 41.3 shot attempts allowed per 603rd of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Utah: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

      Utah: a 7.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

    • Buffalo: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against8th of 32

      Buffalo: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against10th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Utah: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 608th of 32

      Utah: 0.50 defensive breakdowns per 6019th of 32

    • Buffalo: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6021st of 32

      Buffalo: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

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

      Utah: +0.03 goals saved above expected per 6018th of 32

    • Buffalo: +0.09 goals saved above expected per 6019th of 32

      Buffalo: −1.33 goals saved above expected per 6029th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Utah: 81.5 shots per 60, both teams combined18th of 32

      Utah: 83.3 shots per 60, both teams combined10th of 32

    • Buffalo: 81.5 shots per 60, both teams combined19th of 32

      Buffalo: 70.9 shots per 60, both teams combined30th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Utah: forecheck score 119 (100 is league average)4th of 32Utah: 26.4 forecheck plays recorded per 606th of 32

      Utah: forecheck score 135 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Utah: 32.0 forecheck plays recorded per 604th of 32

    • Buffalo: forecheck score 93 (100 is league average)19th of 32Buffalo: 20.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6022nd of 32

      Buffalo: forecheck score 88 (100 is league average)20th of 32Buffalo: 20.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6024th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Utah: hit score 112 (100 is league average)7th of 32Utah: 28.4 hits recorded per 6010th of 32

      Utah: hit score 124 (100 is league average)6th of 32Utah: 33.8 hits recorded per 607th of 32

    • Buffalo: hit score 91 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Buffalo: 24.5 hits recorded per 6024th of 32

      Buffalo: hit score 88 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Buffalo: 25.7 hits recorded per 6023rd of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Utah: 44.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd of 32

      Utah: 45.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd of 32

    • Buffalo: 41.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six21st of 32

      Buffalo: 40.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six26th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Utah: 7.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play9th of 32

      Utah: 9.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play4th of 32

    • Buffalo: 6.9 expected goals per 60 on the power play28th of 32

      Buffalo: 4.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play29th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Utah: 7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded12th of 32

      Utah: 5.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th of 32

    • Buffalo: 7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded15th of 32

      Buffalo: 6.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Utah: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

      Utah: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

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

      Buffalo: 1.4 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded7th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Utah: 0.01 more penalties taken than drawn per 6019th of 32

      Utah: 0.80 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th of 32

    • Buffalo: 0.10 more penalties drawn than taken per 609th of 32

      Buffalo: 0.25 more penalties drawn than taken per 6013th 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 (5 and 4 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.

Utah Mammoth

Buffalo Sabres

Worth knowing

  • Buffalo J. Zucker has not played this season.
  • Buffalo J. Norris has started killing penalties: on the ice for 41% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, up from 1% last season.
  • Buffalo Z. Metsa has started killing penalties: on the ice for 46% of the team’s shorthanded time in 4 games, up from 7% last season.

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 Utah’s, named in each box.

Utah’s lines tonightL1 Trocheck · Schmaltz · KellerL2 Crouse · Hayton · McBainL3 Lee · Guenther · CooleyL4 Stenlund · Carcone · But

Buffalo forward lines against Utah forward lines

  • L1Quinn · Ostlund · BensonUTA L137%UTA L218%UTA L328%UTA L416%
  • L2Thompson · Krebs · KulichUTA L117%UTA L228%UTA L330%UTA L425%
  • L3Norris · McLeod · HeleniusUTA L124%UTA L237%UTA L315%UTA L424%
  • L4Malenstyn · Danforth · DoanUTA L115%UTA L224%UTA L334%UTA L427%

Buffalo defense pairs against Utah forward lines

  • P1Samuelsson · DahlinUTA L128%UTA L223%UTA L326%UTA L424%
  • P2Power · ZellwegerUTA L133%UTA L227%UTA L322%UTA L418%
  • P3Crevier · MetsaUTA L123%UTA L230%UTA L331%UTA L416%

Based on 3 Buffalo home games 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

Utah power play against Buffalo penalty kill

  • Utah power play

    7.8 expected goals per 60 · 9th of 32

  • Buffalo penalty kill

    7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 · 15th of 32

Utah power play

PP165% of the time

Creates 7.8 expected goals per 60

  • M. SergachevQuarterback
  • L. CooleyNet-front
  • D. GuentherTrigger
  • C. KellerDistributor
  • N. SchmaltzNet-front

PP234% of the time

Creates 9.1 expected goals per 60

  • J. MarinoQuarterback
  • M. CarconeTrigger
  • V. Trocheck
  • A. Lee
  • D. But

 

Where Utah’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

K. Vejmelka66 starts · 1710 shots, this season and last

+12.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 847 shots
Medium-danger save %
.891 599 shots
High-danger save %
.674 264 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.26
Quality starts
53%

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 chancesK. VejmelkaS. CossaU. LuukkonenC. Ellis

U. Luukkonen37 starts · 986 shots, this season and last

+5.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.976 499 shots
Medium-danger save %
.868 348 shots
High-danger save %
.719 139 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.8
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.38
Quality starts
59%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +12.5 goals saved above expected in 66 starts
    • U. Luukkonen: +5.7 goals saved above expected in 37 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 26.2 shots faced per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 26.8 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% 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
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.26 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 0.38 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 74 seconds between shots
    • U. Luukkonen: a typical wait of 75 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 53% of the time
    • U. Luukkonen: a quality start 59% of the time

K. Vejmelka, 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)

K. Vejmelka4 starts · 83 shots, this season

+0.6 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.971 34 shots
Medium-danger save %
.824 34 shots
High-danger save %
.867 15 shots
Shots faced per 60
22.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.54
Quality starts
50%

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 chancesK. VejmelkaS. CossaU. LuukkonenC. Ellis

U. Luukkonen3 starts · 55 shots, this season

−5.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.952 21 shots
Medium-danger save %
.714 21 shots
High-danger save %
.615 13 shots
Shots faced per 60
18.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
0%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +0.6 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
    • U. Luukkonen: −5.4 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 22.4 shots faced per 60
    • U. Luukkonen: 18.4 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.5% chance of going in
    • U. Luukkonen: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.54 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
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 116 seconds between shots
    • U. Luukkonen: a typical wait of 118 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 50% of the time
    • U. Luukkonen: a quality start 0% of the time

K. Vejmelka, 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
UtahBuffaloLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play61.2%59.9%
  • Power play18.4%17.1%
  • Rebound4.9%3.9%
  • Empty net6.2%9.3%
  • Off a turnover6.6%4.5%
  • Goalie pulled0.3%1.5%
  • Shorthanded2%2.7%
  • Off a faceoff win0.3%1.2%

304 Utah goals and 334 Buffalo goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play55.6%80%
  • Power play44.4%0%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%10%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%10%

18 Utah goals and 10 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: Utah Mammoth · Buffalo Sabres