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

MIN2

Minnesota Wild

BUF3

Buffalo Sabres

Tuesday, October 6

Final in overtime · KeyBank Center

The short version

What happened

The Sabres come back from two down

Danila Yurov opened the scoring late in the second. The Wild led by two, but the Sabres came all the way back. Owen Power won it in overtime.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Sabres win about four in five.

What it means

  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.
  • RecordThe Sabres are now 2-1-0.

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 (47% for Minnesota), and it went Buffalo’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−2 points44%
Who's been playing+2 points47%
Back-to-back0 points47%
Our chance for Minnesota the morning of the game47%
Tonight's lineup+1 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.

We had this close to even (53% for Buffalo), and Buffalo came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+2 points56%
Who's been playing−2 points53%
Back-to-back0 points53%
Our chance for Buffalo the morning of the game53%
Tonight's lineup−1 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.

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

    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

    Didn’t happen

    2.2% of Minnesota’s 5-on-5 chances came right after winning the puck, against their usual 7.5%.

    7.5%
    Coming in
    2.2%
    In this game
    7.3%
    League average

  2. Before the game

    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

    Held up

    On how dangerous the average shot was, Buffalo had 7.6% a shot and Minnesota 5.3% a shot. Coming in, Buffalo was at 6.5% a shot and Minnesota at 6.2% a shot.

    BUF 6.5% a shot · MIN 6.2% a shot
    Coming in
    BUF 7.6% a shot · MIN 5.3% a shot
    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 77.

24%
Minnesota: 15 wins, plus half of the 16 ties
77%
Buffalo: 68 wins, plus half of the 16 ties

Minnesota had 26 chances worth 1.6 expected goals. Buffalo had 36 chances worth 3.0 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.

MinnesotaBuffalo
Goals23
Shots on goal2028
Expected goals2.04.1
Shot attempts at 5-on-53847
Power plays1 of 40 of 2

Swing

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

The biggest swings: O. Power +1.7, T. Thompson +0.8 and J. Kulich +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
  • Q. HughesDid his job
    Defense
    29:30
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.1typical 7.6
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.7
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.22typical 0.07
  • K. KaprizovOff night
    Left wing
    24:58
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.1typical 7.1
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.6
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.12typical 0.17
  • M. BoldyDid his job
    Left wing
    23:24
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.3
    Shots
    7
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.1typical 7.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.2typical 6.2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 5
  • J. SpurgeonMixed night
    Defense
    21:49
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.4typical 7.4
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 2
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.4typical 2.2
  • J. Eriksson EkOff night
    Center
    20:26
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.1typical 7.1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill1.2typical 6.9
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • J. BrodinRough night

    No points, and 75% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    19:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill6.2typical 6.4
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots3typical 2
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.1typical 2.1
Show 10 more Minnesota playersHide the other Minnesota players
  • O. MaattaRough night

    No points, and 82% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Defense
    19:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–1.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓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-54.9typical 2.3
  • B. ColemanMixed night
    Left wing
    17:44
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    −2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.3typical 6.5
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.14typical 0.13
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.2
  • M. ShabanovMixed night

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 8, so it counts for more.

    Right wing
    17:30
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play1.4typical 6.0
  • M. McCarronOff night
    Center
    15:16
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.2typical 7.0
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won9 of 19typical 54%
  • D. YurovMixed night

    A power-play goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, so it counts for more.

    Right wing
    14:21
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✕Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won3 of 9typical 43%
  • D. HuntDid his job
    Defense
    14:08
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • R. HartmanRough night

    No points, and 74% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    13:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–1.0
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play6.0typical 6.3
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-51.8typical 2.6
  • B. BrinkRough night

    No points, and 76% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Right wing
    13:34
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.9typical 6.7
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-54.9typical 2.0
  • M. FolignoMixed night
    Left wing
    13:25
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.7
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    7
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✕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 mosthits7typical 2
  • Y. TreninMixed night
    Center
    13:04
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits6typical 4
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
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 ✓, 10 ≈, 35 ✕.

Somewhere new

Things they aren’t known for, far beyond their usual pace.

A night this big would happen less than one game in fifty at his usual pace, and is at least twice what an average player at his position would manage.

In net

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

  • J. WallstedtDid his job
    Goalie
    64:22
    Shots
    28
    Saves
    25
    Sv%
    .893
    xGA
    4.1
    GSAx
    +1.1
    Dangerous
    6/8
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.1typical +0.6
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance6 of 8typically saves 6 of 8
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance19 of 20typically saves 19 of 20
  • C. EllisMixed night
    Goalie
    64:22
    Shots
    20
    Saves
    18
    Sv%
    .900
    xGA
    2.0
    GSAx
    −0.0
    Dangerous
    2/2
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-0.0typical -0.2
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance16 of 18typically saves 17 of 18

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: Minnesota Wild · Buffalo Sabres