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

BUF

Buffalo Sabres

2-2-0

TOR

Toronto Maple Leafs

2-2-1

Has last change

Thursday, October 15

7:00 PM ET · Scotiabank Arena

The short version

Before the game

Matthews’s favourite opponent

The Sabres come in at 2-2-0, the Maple Leafs at 2-2-1. Buffalo has controlled the play far better over recent games, Toronto will be without Tavares, and Toronto has home ice. Toronto’s best hope is pouncing on loose pucks, plus a big night in goal.

The Sabres come in at 2-2-0, the Maple Leafs at 2-2-1. Buffalo has controlled the play far better over recent games, Toronto will be without Tavares, and Toronto has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Toronto can make a game of it if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Sabres and the Maple Leafs sit at opposite ends for shot suppression.

Who to watch

  • Owns themAuston Matthews has a point in ten straight games against Buffalo, and 15 points in his last ten against them.
  • Still outJason Zucker hasn’t played yet this season.

  1. The Sabres lock it down; the Maple Leafs don’t

    On shot suppression, Buffalo is near the top of the league and Toronto 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 Maple Leafs.

    Shot suppression: Buffalo 6th, Toronto 28th

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

  2. The Maple Leafs’ power play outclasses the Sabres’

    The Maple Leafs are near the top of the league for the power play, at the lethal end; the Sabres are one of the league’s worst, at the harmless end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Maple Leafs’ power play creates more per 60 than the Sabres’.

    Power play: Toronto 10th, Buffalo 28th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 and 5 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 Buffalo and Toronto play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Buffalo SabresToronto Maple LeafsLeague 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 4 and 5 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 4 games for Buffalo, 5 for Toronto. 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

    • Buffalo: 57.0 shot attempts per 6015th of 32

      Buffalo: 57.1 shot attempts per 6012th of 32

    • Toronto: 54.4 shot attempts per 6022nd of 32

      Toronto: 56.8 shot attempts per 6014th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • 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

    • Toronto: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot27th of 32

      Toronto: a 5.4% chance of scoring on the average shot30th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

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

      Buffalo: 7.8% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

    • Toronto: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds23rd of 32

      Toronto: 3.1% of chances come from rebounds29th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

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

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

    • Toronto: 8.4% of chances come right after a turnover1st of 32

      Toronto: 1.8% of chances come right after a turnover31st of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

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

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

    • Toronto: 31.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

      Toronto: 28.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen31st of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

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

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

    • Toronto: 31.2% of shots come from within 20 feet9th of 32

      Toronto: 35.8% of shots come from within 20 feet5th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

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

      Buffalo: 41.3 shot attempts allowed per 603rd of 32

    • Toronto: 60.8 shot attempts allowed per 6028th of 32

      Toronto: 55.8 shot attempts allowed per 6018th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • 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

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

      Toronto: a 7.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against29th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Buffalo: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6021st of 32

      Buffalo: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Toronto: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6024th of 32

      Toronto: 0.78 defensive breakdowns per 6028th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

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

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

    • Toronto: +0.05 goals saved above expected per 6026th of 32

      Toronto: +0.99 goals saved above expected per 607th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

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

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

    • Toronto: 84.4 shots per 60, both teams combined5th of 32

      Toronto: 83.9 shots per 60, both teams combined9th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • 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

    • Toronto: forecheck score 90 (100 is league average)24th of 32Toronto: 22.1 forecheck plays recorded per 6017th of 32

      Toronto: forecheck score 82 (100 is league average)25th of 32Toronto: 22.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6020th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • 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

    • Toronto: hit score 85 (100 is league average)28th of 32Toronto: 25.6 hits recorded per 6021st of 32

      Toronto: hit score 72 (100 is league average)30th of 32Toronto: 24.7 hits recorded per 6026th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • 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

    • Toronto: 40.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six25th of 32

      Toronto: 40.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six27th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • 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

    • Toronto: 7.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play10th of 32

      Toronto: 8.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play6th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

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

      Buffalo: 6.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

    • Toronto: 8.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

      Toronto: 9.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded29th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

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

      Buffalo: 1.4 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded7th of 32

    • Toronto: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded23rd of 32

      Toronto: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

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

      Buffalo: 0.25 more penalties drawn than taken per 6013th of 32

    • Toronto: 0.23 more penalties taken than drawn per 6031st of 32

      Toronto: 0.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 6015th 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

Toronto 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 (4 and 5 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.

Buffalo Sabres

Toronto Maple Leafs

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.
  • Toronto J. Tavares is out, reported after he played in their last game. He is a top-six forward.
  • Toronto O. Ekman-Larsson has started killing penalties: on the ice for 28% of the team’s shorthanded time in 5 games, up from 6% last season.

Who Toronto is likely to send against whom

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

Buffalo’s lines tonightL1 Quinn · Ostlund · BensonL2 Thompson · Krebs · KulichL3 Norris · McLeod · HeleniusL4 Malenstyn · Danforth · Doan

Toronto forward lines against Buffalo forward lines

  • L1Roslovic · Matthews · MarchenkoBUF L139%BUF L233%BUF L320%BUF L48%
  • L2Sissons · Paul · McKennaBUF L132%BUF L227%BUF L320%BUF L421%
  • L3Blueger · Duhaime · GroulxBUF L132%BUF L227%BUF L314%BUF L427%
  • L4Tavares · Nylander · CowanBUF L117%BUF L238%BUF L327%BUF L418%

Toronto defense pairs against Buffalo forward lines

  • P1Tanev · McCabeBUF L137%BUF L232%BUF L319%BUF L412%
  • P2Rielly · RaddyshBUF L129%BUF L227%BUF L320%BUF L424%
  • P3Ekman-Larsson · StecherBUF L130%BUF L236%BUF L323%BUF L411%

Based on 4 Toronto 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

Buffalo power play against Toronto penalty kill

  • Buffalo power play

    6.9 expected goals per 60 · 28th of 32

  • Toronto penalty kill

    8.6 expected goals allowed per 60 · 32nd of 32

Buffalo power play

PP163% of the time

Creates 6.4 expected goals per 60

  • R. DahlinQuarterback
  • J. Quinn
  • Z. BensonNet-front
  • T. ThompsonTrigger
  • N. Ostlund

PP237% of the time

Creates 6.1 expected goals per 60

  • O. PowerQuarterback
  • K. Helenius
  • J. DoanTrigger
  • R. McLeodDistributor
  • J. Norris

 

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

Toronto penalty kill

Starts the kill

  • B. Duhaime15 of 15 kills · 1:00 a kill
  • C. Sissons15 of 15 kills · 0:55 a kill · takes the draw
  • N. Paul12 of 15 kills · 0:59 a kill · takes the draw
  • C. TanevD15 of 15 kills · 1:13 a kill
  • J. McCabeD13 of 15 kills · 1:21 a 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

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%

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 chancesU. LuukkonenC. EllisS. BobrovskyA. Stolarz

S. Bobrovsky52 starts · 1346 shots, this season and last

−15.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.970 694 shots
Medium-danger save %
.847 438 shots
High-danger save %
.650 214 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.28
Quality starts
56%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • U. Luukkonen: +5.7 goals saved above expected in 37 starts
    • S. Bobrovsky: −15.1 goals saved above expected in 52 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • U. Luukkonen: 26.8 shots faced per 60
    • S. Bobrovsky: 25.3 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • U. Luukkonen: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
    • S. Bobrovsky: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • U. Luukkonen: 0.38 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • S. Bobrovsky: 0.28 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • U. Luukkonen: a typical wait of 75 seconds between shots
    • S. Bobrovsky: a typical wait of 81 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • U. Luukkonen: a quality start 59% of the time
    • S. Bobrovsky: a quality start 56% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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%

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 chancesU. LuukkonenC. EllisS. BobrovskyA. Stolarz

S. Bobrovsky3 starts · 96 shots, this season

+3.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.977 44 shots
Medium-danger save %
.889 36 shots
High-danger save %
.750 16 shots
Shots faced per 60
31.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.66
Quality starts
67%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • U. Luukkonen: −5.4 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • S. Bobrovsky: +3.4 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • U. Luukkonen: 18.4 shots faced per 60
    • S. Bobrovsky: 31.5 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • U. Luukkonen: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
    • S. Bobrovsky: the average shot he faces has a 8.6% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • U. Luukkonen: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • S. Bobrovsky: 0.66 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • U. Luukkonen: a typical wait of 118 seconds between shots
    • S. Bobrovsky: a typical wait of 52 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • U. Luukkonen: a quality start 0% of the time
    • S. Bobrovsky: a quality start 67% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Bobrovsky, 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
BuffaloTorontoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play59.9%58.3%
  • Power play17.1%15.8%
  • Rebound3.9%7.5%
  • Empty net9.3%7.1%
  • Off a turnover4.5%6.4%
  • Goalie pulled1.5%1.5%
  • Shorthanded2.7%2.3%
  • Off a faceoff win1.2%1.1%

334 Buffalo goals and 266 Toronto goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play80%78.6%
  • Power play0%21.4%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover10%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win10%0%

10 Buffalo goals and 14 Toronto 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: Buffalo Sabres · Toronto Maple Leafs