Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
final

UTA4

Utah Mammoth

BUF1

Buffalo Sabres

Saturday, October 10

Final · KeyBank Center

The Mammoth beat the Sabres

Tage Thompson opened the scoring midway through the first. Four different Mammoth scored.

The score was fair. Replay this game’s chances a hundred times and the Mammoth win about seven in ten. By our Swing measure, Anders Lee had the best night of anyone. The Sabres tried a line they hadn’t used before: Josh Norris, Jack Quinn and Thompson.

UTABUF

30Shots on goal24

4.5Expected goals2.8

55Shot attempts at 5-on-546

2 of 5Power plays1 of 4

What it means

  • FinallyJohn Marino scored his first goal of the season.
  • Keep an eye onWhether the Sabres keep that line together at home against Florida on Monday.
  • The previewTwo of the preview’s three calls held.

Run it back

Utah earned this one

68 Utah13 even19 Buffalo

Played out 100 times with these chances, Utah wins 75.

Utah had 52 chances worth 4.4 expected goals. Buffalo had 39 chances worth 2.8 expected goals.

How the replays work

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. 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.

How it unfolded

Every shot on goal or wide of the net, in game time. Press play, or tap the chart to stop at a moment and see who was on the ice.

Show the game as
Final

Loading the game…

What the preview said

Of the 3 calls the preview made, 2 held up, 0 partly did, and 1 didn’t happen.

Our win chance, kept hidden until the final

46%for Utah to win

Utah pulled it off.

  1. Start at even
    50%
  2. Home iceBuffalo were at home. Over the last three seasons, home teams won about 54% of games.
    −446%
  3. Recent chancesLately, Utah have outchanced their opponents by 0.42 expected goals a game, and Buffalo have outchanced their opponents by 0.35 expected goals a game. The latest games count most, and last season still counts a little.
    +148%
  4. Who’s been playingWe look at who each team dressed in their last game and compare those players with the ones who played in the games behind the rating above. Utah’s last lineup was weaker than usual (someone important out, or a call-up in), so their recent chances flatter them a little. This way an injury counts straight away, instead of waiting for results to catch up.
    −444%
  5. Back-to-backNeither team played the night before, so nothing changes here.
    044%
  6. Tonight's lineupThe same check as “Who’s been playing”, done again with the players who actually dressed tonight. It only moves when someone came in or went out after the morning: here Utah looked stronger, or Buffalo weaker, than we had expected.
    +246%
  7. Our final number
    46%

Worked out the morning of the game, from earlier games only. The preview could hint at it in words but never showed the number.

Our win chance, kept hidden until the final

54%for Buffalo to win

We leaned Buffalo’s way (56%), but Utah had other ideas.

  1. Start at even
    50%
  2. Home iceBuffalo were at home. Over the last three seasons, home teams won about 54% of games.
    +454%
  3. Recent chancesLately, Buffalo have outchanced their opponents by 0.35 expected goals a game, and Utah have outchanced their opponents by 0.42 expected goals a game. The latest games count most, and last season still counts a little.
    −152%
  4. Who’s been playingWe look at who each team dressed in their last game and compare those players with the ones who played in the games behind the rating above. Utah’s last lineup was weaker than usual (someone important out, or a call-up in), so their recent chances flatter them a little. This way an injury counts straight away, instead of waiting for results to catch up.
    +456%
  5. Back-to-backNeither team played the night before, so nothing changes here.
    056%
  6. Tonight's lineupThe same check as “Who’s been playing”, done again with the players who actually dressed tonight. It only moves when someone came in or went out after the morning: here Utah looked stronger, or Buffalo weaker, than we had expected.
    −254%
  7. Our final number
    54%

Worked out the morning of the game, from earlier games only. The preview could hint at it in words but never showed the number.

  1. Strength against strength

    The Mammoth are one of the league’s best for shot volume, and the Sabres are near the top of the league at keeping shots away. Our lean: the Mammoth’s shot volume wins out.

    The call The Mammoth take more than the league-average 56.4 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 against the Sabres.

    Utah 2nd for shot volume (66.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Buffalo 6th for keeping shots away

    Held up

    On 5-on-5 shot attempts, Utah had 76.4 per 60. The league average is 56.4 per 60, and they came in at 66.6 per 60.

    66.6 per 60
    Coming in
    76.4 per 60
    In this game
    56.4 per 60
    League average

  2. Something has to give

    The Mammoth are one of the league’s best for chance quality, and the Sabres are near the top of the league at preventing dangerous shots. We think the Mammoth still get theirs.

    The call The Mammoth’s chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Sabres.

    Utah 5th for chance quality (a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Buffalo 8th for preventing dangerous shots

    Held up

    On chance quality, Utah had 7.9% a shot. The league average is 6.4% a shot, and they came in at 6.7% a shot.

    6.7% a shot
    Coming in
    7.9% a shot
    In this game
    6.4% a shot
    League average

  3. The Sabres want Benson head to head with Keller

    At home, the Sabres keep sending Benson’s line (Quinn, Ostlund and Benson) out against opponents’ first lines, far more often than chance would. Strength on strength, and Lindy Ruff is choosing it. Tonight the Mammoth’s first line is Trocheck, Schmaltz and Keller.

    The call The Sabres’ L1 (Quinn, Ostlund and Benson) spends at least 37% of its 5-on-5 time against the Mammoth’s first line.

    At home: 37% of this group’s 5-on-5 time against first lines, about 26% with no line matching

    Didn’t happen

    Buffalo’s L1 (Quinn, Ostlund, Benson) spent 22% of its 5-on-5 time against Utah’s L1 (2:17 of 10:28), against a home habit of 37% and about 26% with no line matching.

    37%
    Coming in
    22%
    In this game
    26%
    With no line matching

Read the full preview as it stood at puck drop. This season: 107 held up, 14 partly, 76 didn’t happen, out of 197. Track record.

How the calls are checked

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.

What it didn’t see coming

What the labels mean

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.

Swing

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

The biggest swings: A. Lee +2.5, K. Yamamoto +2.3 and J. Marino +2.1.

Showhighlighting

Tap a player to see where his number came from.

How Swing is worked out

The number is roughly in goals: what he added to his team tonight, or cost it. 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.

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 actual goals for and against at half the weight of a chance. A player on a losing team can score well if his line held its own. Special teams: everything with him on the ice on the power play and penalty kill, chances and goals both ways (a shorthanded goal against counts against the power-play unit), compared with a league-average unit.

Company kept (counted inside 5-on-5): from every player’s 5-on-5 impact going into this season, 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
  • M. SergachevOff night
    Defense
    25:23
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.3–0.8
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.8typical 7.3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.4typical 6.6
    • ≈Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 4
  • M. WeegarDid his job
    Defense
    20:23
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    4
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill8.1typical 6.6
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots4typical 2
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-58typical 4
  • L. CooleyDid his job
    Center
    20:07
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.4–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play5.0typical 7.3
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won6 of 9typical 47%
  • N. SchmidtDid his job
    Defense
    19:37
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    1.6–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.4typical 6.2
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-56.0typical 2.6
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.0typical 2.2
  • N. SchmaltzMixed night
    Center
    19:12
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.5
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.8typical 7.3
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.3typical 6.3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-53typical 3
  • J. MarinoBig night

    A power-play goal, 1 assist, 81% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Defense
    19:06
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    2.3–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-52.1typical 2.2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
Show 12 more Utah playersHide the other Utah players
  • C. KellerMixed night
    Right wing
    18:06
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.5
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.9typical 7.1
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.08typical 0.11
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-54.8typical 2.7
  • D. GuentherDid his job
    Right wing
    17:18
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.1–0.6
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.9typical 7.3
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.34typical 0.12
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 3
  • V. TrocheckDid his job
    Center
    17:15
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.6
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play13.4typical 7.4
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won6 of 10typical 59%
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits6typical 3
  • A. PeekeDid his job
    Defense
    15:19
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill16.7typical 6.6
    • ✓Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots1typical 1
  • L. CrouseMixed night
    Left wing
    14:57
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill10.1typical 6.4
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.04typical 0.12
  • K. StenlundOff night
    Center
    13:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.0typical 6.8
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 10typical 52%
  • D. SimashevDid his job
    Defense
    13:25
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.4
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 1
  • B. HaytonBig night

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

    Center
    12:30
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.4–0.3
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play19.7typical 6.5
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-54typical 2
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.09
  • K. YamamotoBig night

    A goal, 1 assist, 91% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Right wing
    12:28
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.7–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-50.9typical 2.1
  • J. McBainMixed night
    Center
    12:09
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.3
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    4
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill4.4typical 6.8
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.03typical 0.11
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits4typical 4
  • A. LeeBig night

    A goal, 1 assist, 88% of the 5-on-5 chances with him on.

    Left wing
    12:08
    G
    1
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    1.7–0.2
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✓Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play19.9typical 5.7
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.83typical 0.12
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-59.8typical 2.5
  • D. ButDid his job
    Left wing
    10:29
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.3–0.2
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✓Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.17typical 0.09
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 1
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: 44 ✓, 7 ≈, 29 ✕.

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.

  • K. VejmelkaBig night

    23 saves on 24 shots, +1.8 goals saved above expected.

    Goalie
    59:54
    Shots
    24
    Saves
    23
    Sv%
    .958
    xGA
    2.8
    GSAx
    +1.8
    Dangerous
    5/5
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+1.8typical +0.3
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance5 of 5typically saves 3 of 5
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance18 of 19typically saves 18 of 19
  • C. EllisDid his job
    Goalie
    59:28
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .867
    xGA
    4.5
    GSAx
    +0.5
    Dangerous
    6/8
    • ✓Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.5typical -0.1
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance6 of 8typically saves 6 of 8
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance20 of 22typically saves 21 of 22
How goalie cards are graded

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: Utah Mammoth · Buffalo Sabres