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

BUF3

Buffalo Sabres

CBJ6

Columbus Blue Jackets

Thursday, October 1

Final · Nationwide Arena

The short version

What happened

The Blue Jackets beat the Sabres

Mattias Samuelsson opened the scoring midway through the first. Matthew Knies added two goals. Five different Blue Jackets scored.

The score flatters the Blue Jackets: the Sabres had the better of the play. Replay the chances a hundred times and the Sabres win about six in ten. By our Swing measure, Owen Power had the best night of anyone, even in a loss.

What it means

  • Up nextMatt Grzelcyk faces his old team, Chicago, on Saturday.
  • The previewNone of the preview’s two calls held.

Our pre-game read

The win chance our model worked out before the game, kept off the site until now.

We had this close to even (45% for Buffalo), and it went Columbus’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances+3 points49%
Who's been playing−4 points45%
Back-to-back0 points45%
Our chance for Buffalo the morning of the game45%
Tonight's lineup+8 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known53%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

We had this close to even (55% for Columbus), and Columbus came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances−3 points51%
Who's been playing+4 points55%
Back-to-back0 points55%
Our chance for Columbus the morning of the game55%
Tonight's lineup−8 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known47%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

What the preview said, and what happened

Of the 2 calls the preview made, 0 held up, 0 partly did, and 2 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Nobody’s sitting back in this one

    Buffalo plays some of the league’s fastest games, and so does Columbus. We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 84.5 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Buffalo 6th (84.1), Columbus 4th (84.5)

    Didn’t happen

    The game ran at 62.4 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams combined, against the faster team’s usual 84.5 and a league average of 81.7.

    84.5 per 60
    Coming in
    62.4 per 60
    In this game
    81.7 per 60
    League average

  2. Before the game

    The Sabres kill penalties far better than the Blue Jackets

    On the penalty kill, Buffalo is around the middle of the league and Columbus is the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Sabres’ penalty kill allows less per 60 than the Blue Jackets’.

    Penalty kill: Buffalo 16th, Columbus 32nd

    Didn’t happen

    On expected goals allowed per 60 on the penalty kill, Buffalo had 10.7 per 60 and Columbus 7.5 per 60. Coming in, Buffalo was at 7.5 per 60 and Columbus at 8.5 per 60.

    BUF 7.5 per 60 · CBJ 8.5 per 60
    Coming in
    BUF 10.7 per 60 · CBJ 7.5 per 60
    In this game

Each call is checked by a rule set before the game. Held up: the team reached their usual level. Partly: they fell short of their usual level but still beat the league average. When a call says one team will come out ahead, held up means they won by at least half their usual gap, and partly means they won by less. One game is a small sample, so a miss doesn’t mean the preview was wrong about the team.

Read the full preview as it stood at puck drop.

This season so far: 94 held up, 12 partly, 64 didn’t happen, out of 170 graded calls. See the track record.

Run it back

We replayed this game’s chances 100 times. Here is how often each team came out ahead.

Buffalo usually wins this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Buffalo wins 62. The goals went the other way.

62%
Buffalo: 52 wins, plus half of the 18 ties
38%
Columbus: 29 wins, plus half of the 18 ties

Buffalo had 39 chances worth 2.8 expected goals. Columbus had 30 chances worth 2.2 expected goals.

How it works: every shot in regulation that was on target or missed the net goes in as often as our expected-goals model says it should, and the game is played out 100 times that way. A rebound scramble counts as one chance, and empty-net shots are left out. A replay tied after regulation counts as half a win each, since overtime and shootouts are close to coin flips.

It doesn’t know about goalies, finishing skill or passes before a shot. It also favours the team that was chasing, because a team with a lead tends to sit back. Over the last three seasons, teams it gave 80% or more won about two games in three.

What the preview didn’t see coming

The parts of this game furthest from how these teams usually play, biggest first.

Broke the pattern: a team did the opposite of their usual habit. Further than usual: a usual habit, taken much further. Closer than usual: a usual strength or weakness that mostly disappeared. Out of character: a usually average team, far from average. Each is measured against the teams’ numbers before the game.

The numbers

How the game went, beyond the score.

BuffaloColumbus
Goals36
Shots on goal2623
Expected goals2.82.2
Shot attempts at 5-on-54029
Power plays0 of 42 of 3

Swing

How far each player swung tonight’s result, for his team or against it.

The biggest swings: O. Power +1.0, M. Knies +0.9 and C. Coyle +0.9.

Showhighlighting

The number is roughly in goals: what he added to his team tonight, or cost it. Tap a player to see where it came from. The label beside it is his report card from “Did they do their job?” below; L1 to L4 and P1 to P3 are tonight’s lines and pairs.

How Swing is worked outHide how Swing is worked out

Scoresheet: each goal is shared 40% to the scorer, 35% to the first assist and 25% to the second, plus a quarter of the expected goals of his own shots. A penalty drawn adds 0.16 and one taken costs 0.16, what a power play is worth on average; each faceoff won or lost moves it by 0.006.

5-on-5 counts most: expected goals for minus against with him on, half compared with league average (adjusted for score and venue) and half compared with his own team when he was on the bench, plus a smaller amount for actual goals. A player on a losing team can score well if his line held its own. Special teams: power-play and penalty-kill time compared with a league-average unit.

Company kept (counted inside 5-on-5): from every player’s 5-on-5 impact over the two seasons before, a player out with strong linemates against weak opponents gives a little back, and the reverse earns a little. Goalies: goals saved above expected. Empty-net shots and shootouts are left out. One game is a small sample: this says who swung this result, not who is better.

Did they do their job?

What each player is relied on for or better than most at, and whether he delivered.

Show
  • R. DahlinMixed night
    Defense
    25:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.9
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play8.9typical 6.4
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.08
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 2.6
  • O. PowerMixed night

    2 assists. A good scoresheet, but his usual jobs went quiet.

    Defense
    25:25
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill13.1typical 6.2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.00typical 0.06
  • J. QuinnDid his job
    Right wing
    20:46
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play9.5typical 6.1
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.21typical 0.14
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 3
  • T. ThompsonDid his job
    Center
    19:46
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.4
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.2typical 6.5
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 4
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.58typical 0.16
  • J. DoanDid his job
    Right wing
    19:06
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.1typical 6.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.1typical 2.7
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.35typical 0.14
  • Z. BensonDid his job
    Left wing
    18:34
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play10.0typical 6.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.2typical 2.3
Show 8 more Buffalo playersHide the other Buffalo players
  • N. OstlundBig night

    2 assists.

    Center
    16:42
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.7typical 5.6
  • R. McLeodMixed night
    Center
    16:41
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.8typical 5.7
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.6typical 6.8
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.1typical 2.7
  • J. NorrisOff night
    Center
    16:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.0typical 7.0
    • –Faceoffs Relied onToo little time to judge
  • L. CrevierMixed night
    Defense
    16:14
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.8typical 6.6
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 1
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
  • K. HeleniusBig night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, on top of doing his usual jobs.

    Center
    15:09
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 2
  • P. KrebsDid his job
    Center
    14:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • B. MalenstynDid his job
    Left wing
    8:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • S. CarrickMixed night
    Center
    7:43
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won4 of 10typical 54%
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
How the cards are gradedHide how the cards are graded

✓ a typical night for him in the ice time he got (the level he reaches in about half his games). ≈ beat an average player at his position, a typical power play or kill, or his own team with him off the ice. ✕ neither. Power-play and penalty-kill results count half, since five players share them.

Huge night: a hat trick or four or more points. Big night: two or more points, or a goal from a player who scores in fewer than one game in five on top of doing his jobs. Rough night: no points while the other team had 70% or more of the 5-on-5 chances with him on (xGF–xGA). Plus-minus never sets the level. A shorthanded goal counts as two points. Points never fully cover for jobs that went badly: with his jobs off, a huge night reads big and a big night reads mixed.

Judged only from games before this one; 5-on-5 rates adjusted for score and venue. One game is a small sample: even a strong player misses a typical night about half the time. Both teams: 39 ✓, 1 ≈, 22 ✕.

In net

Each goalie’s night: the goals he stopped beyond what the shots were worth, and the dangerous and routine saves.

  • U. LuukkonenRough night

    17 saves on 22 shots, −2.8 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    59:08
    Shots
    22
    Saves
    17
    Sv%
    .773
    xGA
    2.2
    GSAx
    −2.8
    Dangerous
    2/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-2.8typical +0.5
    • ✕Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance15 of 17typically saves 16 of 17
  • J. GreavesOff night
    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    26
    Saves
    23
    Sv%
    .885
    xGA
    2.8
    GSAx
    −0.2
    Dangerous
    2/2
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.2typical +0.5
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance21 of 24typically saves 23 of 24

Every goalie has the same three jobs, judged against his own earlier starts (✓) and an average goalie (≈). Huge night: a shutout on 25 or more shots, or 3+ goals saved above expected. Big night: any other shutout, or 1.5+. Rough night: 2+ goals worse than expected, or pulled early after three or more.

Empty-net shots are left out. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie beaten by cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really was.

Team pages: Buffalo Sabres · Columbus Blue Jackets