Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Last Changeworking title
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
final

DAL4

Dallas Stars

BUF0

Buffalo Sabres

Thursday, October 8

Final · KeyBank Center

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 (43% for Dallas), and Dallas came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−3 points43%
Back-to-back0 points43%
Our chance for Dallas the morning of the game43%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known43%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: whether the players who dressed were stronger or weaker than the team’s usual lineup. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

We had this close to even (57% for Buffalo), and it went Dallas’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+3 points57%
Back-to-back0 points57%
Our chance for Buffalo the morning of the game57%
Tonight's lineup0 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known57%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: whether the players who dressed were stronger or weaker than the team’s usual lineup. 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

    One power play bites, one doesn’t

    On power play, Dallas ranks 3rd in the league and Buffalo ranks 25th. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

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

    Held up

    On power-play expected goals per 60, Dallas had 17.7 per 60 and Buffalo 2.2 per 60. Coming in, Dallas was at 8.8 per 60 and Buffalo at 7.1 per 60.

    Called it, and then some. Buffalo’s power play created 2.2 expected goals per 60, against their usual 7.1 and a league average of 7.5. A team strays this far about once every 15 games.

    DAL 8.8 per 60 · BUF 7.1 per 60
    Coming in
    DAL 17.7 per 60 · BUF 2.2 per 60
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    Active D against forward-led

    On shots from defensemen, Dallas ranks 15th in the league and Buffalo ranks 24th. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Stars’ defensemen take a bigger share of the team’s shot attempts than the Sabres’.

    Didn’t happen

    On share of 5-on-5 shot attempts taken by defensemen, Dallas had 19% and Buffalo 24%. Coming in, Dallas was at 35% and Buffalo at 34%.

    DAL 35% · BUF 34%
    Coming in
    DAL 19% · BUF 24%
    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: 85 held up, 11 partly, 63 didn’t happen, out of 159 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.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Dallas wins 44 and Buffalo 56, close to a coin flip.

44%
Dallas: 34 wins, plus half of the 20 ties
56%
Buffalo: 46 wins, plus half of the 20 ties

Dallas had 28 chances worth 2.1 expected goals. Buffalo had 41 chances worth 2.4 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.

DallasBuffalo
Goals40
Shots on goal1826
Expected goals2.12.4
Shot attempts at 5-on-53158
Power plays1 of 20 of 3

Swing

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

The biggest swings: M. Rantanen +1.5, W. Johnston +1.1 and T. Harley +1.0.

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
  • T. HarleyMixed night
    Defense
    23:35
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.7
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.3
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 2.4
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
  • E. LindellMixed night
    Defense
    21:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–1.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill3.3typical 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-54.5typical 2.0
  • M. HeiskanenOff night
    Defense
    19:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.8
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play17.7typical 8.2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.0typical 6.2
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-50typical 3
  • N. LundkvistOff night
    Defense
    18:08
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 3
  • L. BichselMixed night

    No points, and 87% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on, though he still did his usual jobs.

    Defense
    17:34
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    4
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 3
  • T. MyersOff night
    Defense
    17:30
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.9
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.01typical 0.04
Show 11 more Dallas playersHide the other Dallas players
  • W. JohnstonBig night

    3 assists. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Center
    16:40
    G
    0
    A
    3
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play17.7typical 8.4
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 2.6
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.05typical 0.12
  • T. SeguinOff night
    Center
    15:40
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-51typical 3
    • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo little time to judge
  • S. SteelBig night

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

    Center
    15:31
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.0typical 6.1
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-51.6typical 2.2
    • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo little time to judge
  • M. Rantanen★ Huge night

    A goal, 3 assists.

    Right wing
    15:27
    G
    1
    A
    3
    +/−
    +3
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play17.7typical 8.1
  • J. RobertsonDid his job
    Left wing
    15:14
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play18.5typical 8.2
    • ≈Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.2typical 2.6
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.18typical 0.13
  • A. HyryDid his job
    Right wing
    15:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.0–0.4
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill0.7typical 6.2
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won10 of 15typical 60%
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
  • R. HintzDid his job
    Center
    14:57
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.3
    Shots
    6
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play17.7typical 8.6
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won12 of 17typical 56%
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-55typical 2
  • J. HryckowianRough night

    No points, and 94% of the 5-on-5 chances went the other way with him on.

    Center
    14:48
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    5
    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-53.9typical 2.1
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • O. BäckMixed night
    Center
    14:22
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.0typical 6.0
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.7typical 2.0
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • R. FaksaMixed night
    Center
    13:11
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.6
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill5.0typical 5.9
    • ≈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 2.0
  • C. BlackwellDid his job
    Center
    12:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–1.0
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 1
    • –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: 32 ✓, 9 ≈, 31 ✕.

In net

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

  • J. Oettinger★ Huge night

    A shutout, 26 saves on 26 shots, +2.4 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    60:00
    Shots
    26
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    1.000
    xGA
    2.4
    GSAx
    +2.4
    Dangerous
    1/1
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+2.4typical +0.4
    • –Dangerous shots Too few shots to judge
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance25 of 25typically saves 23 of 25
  • U. LuukkonenOff night
    Goalie
    59:54
    Shots
    18
    Saves
    14
    Sv%
    .778
    xGA
    2.1
    GSAx
    −1.9
    Dangerous
    4/5
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.9typical +0.4
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance4 of 5typically saves 4 of 5
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance10 of 13typically saves 12 of 13

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: Dallas Stars · Buffalo Sabres