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

CHI3

Chicago Blackhawks

BUF4

Buffalo Sabres

Saturday, October 3

Final · KeyBank Center

The short version

What happened

The Sabres come back from two down

Ryan Donato opened the scoring midway through the first. Four different Sabres scored. The Blackhawks led by two, but the Sabres came all the way back. Jiri Kulich scored the winner late in the third.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Sabres win about four in five. By our Swing measure, Alex Vlasic had the best night of anyone, even in a loss. The Blackhawks tried a line they hadn’t used before: Frank Nazar, Patrick Kane and Roman Kantserov.

What it means

  • SlumpThe Blackhawks haven’t won in three.
  • Keep an eye onWhether the Blackhawks keep that line together at home against St. Louis on Tuesday.
  • The previewOne 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 gave Chicago only a 28% chance, and it went the way we feared.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−16 points30%
Who's been playing−2 points28%
Back-to-back0 points28%
Our chance for Chicago the morning of the game28%
Tonight's lineup−3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known25%

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 gave Buffalo a 72% chance, and Buffalo delivered.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+16 points70%
Who's been playing+2 points72%
Back-to-back0 points72%
Our chance for Buffalo the morning of the game72%
Tonight's lineup+3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known75%

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, 1 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    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

    Didn’t happen

    6.2% of Chicago’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 7.6%.

    7.6%
    Coming in
    6.2%
    In this game
    7.2%
    League average

  2. Before the game

    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

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts allowed per 60, Buffalo had 39.7 per 60 and Chicago 64.1 per 60. Coming in, Buffalo was at 55.2 per 60 and Chicago at 61.7 per 60.

    BUF 55.2 per 60 · CHI 61.7 per 60
    Coming in
    BUF 39.7 per 60 · CHI 64.1 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: 87 held up, 11 partly, 62 didn’t happen, out of 160 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 earned this one

Played out 100 times with these chances, Buffalo wins 76.

24%
Chicago: 17 wins, plus half of the 14 ties
76%
Buffalo: 69 wins, plus half of the 14 ties

Chicago had 28 chances worth 2.3 expected goals. Buffalo had 47 chances worth 4.0 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.

ChicagoBuffalo
Goals34
Shots on goal1528
Expected goals2.34.0
Shot attempts at 5-on-53258
Power plays0 of 20 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: A. Vlasic +1.4, I. Cole +1.0 and Z. Metsa +0.7.

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
  • A. LevshunovOff night
    Defense
    24:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.7
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.4
  • W. KaiserDid his job
    Defense
    22:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.6typical 6.7
  • A. VlasicBig night

    2 assists.

    Defense
    22:33
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.8typical 6.4
  • I. ColeDid his job
    Defense
    20:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.7typical 6.8
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots2typical 2
  • F. NazarOff night
    Center
    19:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.1typical 6.2
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won6 of 16typical 47%
  • P. KaneMixed night
    Right wing
    19:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 7.9
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.8typical 2.4
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
Show 8 more Chicago playersHide the other Chicago players
  • T. BertuzziOff night
    Left wing
    16:18
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.9
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play0.0typical 6.5
  • A. FrondellMixed night

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

    Center
    16:06
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won6 of 16typical 36%
  • J. GreenwayMixed night
    Left wing
    15:55
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.8
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Hitting Better than mosthits0typical 2
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • R. GreeneDid his job
    Center
    15:36
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.7
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.9typical 2.2
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won8 of 14typical 41%
  • C. SmithDid his job
    Right wing
    15:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.7
    • ≈Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.5typical 2.3
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
  • E. Del MastroRough night

    No points, and 77% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    15:01
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • T. TeravainenOff night
      Center
      14:22
      G
      0
      A
      1
      +/−
      +2
      xGF–xGA
      0.4–0.8
      Shots
      1
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      1
      • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.8typical 6.8
      • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.9typical 2.6
    • K. KorchinskiRough night

      No points, and 79% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

      Defense
      11:21
      G
      0
      A
      0
      +/−
      −2
      xGF–xGA
      0.4–1.6
      Shots
      2
      Hits
      0
      Blocks
      0
      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: 30 ✓, 4 ≈, 24 ✕.

      In net

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

      • S. KnightOff night
        Goalie
        59:01
        Shots
        28
        Saves
        24
        Sv%
        .857
        xGA
        4.0
        GSAx
        −0.0
        Dangerous
        3/4
        • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.0typical +0.3
        • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
        • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance21 of 24typically saves 22 of 24
      • U. LuukkonenOff night
        Goalie
        60:00
        Shots
        15
        Saves
        12
        Sv%
        .800
        xGA
        2.3
        GSAx
        −0.7
        Dangerous
        2/3
        • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.7typical +0.5
        • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance2 of 3typically saves 2 of 3
        • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance10 of 12typically saves 11 of 12

      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: Chicago Blackhawks · Buffalo Sabres