The Sabres earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The scoreboard looked like a rout—Sabres 4, Hurricanes 1—but the underlying metrics suggested the game was nearly even. Expected goals favored Buffalo 4.98–4.52, a margin so thin it amounts to a coin flip. What transformed a close contest into a convincing win? Catastrophic underperformance from Carolina, which fell 3.52 goals short of its expected total, versus Buffalo's modest 0.98-goal shortfall.
The difference sits squarely in net. U. Luukkonen was exceptional, stopping 29 of 30 shots (0.967 SV%) and saving 3.52 goals above expected. The Hurricanes generated seven high-danger opportunities and converted zero. That conversion rate won't hold.
F. Andersen kept Carolina alive despite the chaos, stopping 17 of 20 shots (0.850 SV%). But he couldn't compensate for his offense's paralysis. Carolina generated higher-quality looks than its shot total suggested, but precision escaped them. The Hurricanes created nine rebound opportunities without a single goal.
Buffalo executed with ruthless efficiency. The Sabres generated far more dangerous chances than Carolina relative to shot volume—an xG-per-shot rate of 0.106 to Carolina's 0.058. They were lethal on the rush, converting three goals from twenty-nine rush chances.
The stat sheet tilts Carolina's way in one regard: high-danger chances split 7–6 in the Hurricanes' favor. Yet Luukkonen's goaltending absorbed every one while Buffalo's finishers capitalized on their limited opportunities.

