IceHockeyMan

IHM NHL DAILY RECAP | February 3, 2026

NHL Daily Recap

By IceHockeyMan Newsroom | February 3, 2026

IHM Academy - Performance Metrics Master.

Final Scores

Florida Panthers 3, Buffalo Sabres 5
Pittsburgh Penguins 2, Ottawa Senators 3
Washington Capitals 4, New York Islanders 1
Minnesota Wild 4, Montreal Canadiens 3 (OT)
Nashville Predators 6, St. Louis Blues 5
Chicago Blackhawks 6, San Jose Sharks 3
Dallas Stars 4, Winnipeg Jets 3 (OT)
Colorado Avalanche 0, Detroit Red Wings 2
Utah Mammoth 6, Vancouver Canucks 2
Calgary Flames 2, Toronto Maple Leafs 4

Game-by-Game Breakdown

Florida Panthers 3, Buffalo Sabres 5

Buffalo made their chances count with elite finishing, turning a lower shot volume into five goals. Florida carried the shot count, but the Sabres owned the conversion.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Florida 41, Buffalo 20
• Shots off target: Florida 18, Buffalo 15
• Shooting %: Florida 7.32% (3/41), Buffalo 25% (5/20)
• Blocked shots: Florida 20, Buffalo 13
• Goalkeeper Saves: Florida 15, Buffalo 38
• Saves %: Florida 75% (15/20), Buffalo 92.68% (38/41)
• Penalties: Florida 3, Buffalo 4
• PIM: Florida 6, Buffalo 8

Pittsburgh Penguins 2, Ottawa Senators 3

Ottawa controlled the shot share and forced Pittsburgh to defend long stretches. The Penguins were efficient early, but the Senators kept pushing until the edge showed on the scoreboard.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Pittsburgh 16, Ottawa 31
• Shots off target: Pittsburgh 10, Ottawa 18
• Shooting %: Pittsburgh 12.5% (2/16), Ottawa 9.68% (3/31)
• Blocked shots: Pittsburgh 9, Ottawa 17
• Goalkeeper Saves: Pittsburgh 28, Ottawa 14
• Saves %: Pittsburgh 90.32% (28/31), Ottawa 87.5% (14/16)
• Penalties: Pittsburgh 5, Ottawa 1
• PIM: Pittsburgh 10, Ottawa 2

Washington Capitals 4, New York Islanders 1

Washington finished at a high rate and turned their opportunities into separation. The Islanders generated volume, but could not solve the goaltending often enough.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Washington 24, NY Islanders 30
• Shots off target: Washington 11, NY Islanders 20
• Shooting %: Washington 16.67% (4/24), NY Islanders 3.33% (1/30)
• Blocked shots: Washington 12, NY Islanders 23
• Goalkeeper Saves: Washington 29, NY Islanders 20
• Saves %: Washington 96.67% (29/30), NY Islanders 86.96% (20/23)
• Penalties: Washington 3, NY Islanders 5
• PIM: Washington 9, NY Islanders 13

Minnesota Wild 4, Montreal Canadiens 3 (OT)

A tight game that stayed within one goal most of the night, then swung in overtime. Minnesota held the finishing edge and closed it out after regulation.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Minnesota 24, Montreal 20
• Shots off target: Minnesota 26, Montreal 9
• Shooting %: Minnesota 16.67% (4/24), Montreal 15% (3/20)
• Blocked shots: Minnesota 13, Montreal 15
• Goalkeeper Saves: Minnesota 17, Montreal 20
• Saves %: Minnesota 85% (17/20), Montreal 83.33% (20/24)
• Penalties: Minnesota 1, Montreal 3
• PIM: Minnesota 2, Montreal 6

Nashville Predators 6, St. Louis Blues 5

Pure track meet. Nashville converted at a higher rate and survived the back-and-forth swings. St. Louis had volume, but Nashville’s finishing kept them in front.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Nashville 28, St. Louis 34
• Shots off target: Nashville 21, St. Louis 12
• Shooting %: Nashville 21.43% (6/28), St. Louis 14.71% (5/34)
• Blocked shots: Nashville 10, St. Louis 11
• Goalkeeper Saves: Nashville 29, St. Louis 22
• Saves %: Nashville 85.29% (29/34), St. Louis 78.57% (22/28)
• Penalties: Nashville 2, St. Louis 2
• PIM: Nashville 4, St. Louis 4

Chicago Blackhawks 6, San Jose Sharks 3

Chicago’s finishing was the story, converting at a massive rate on limited shots. San Jose generated more attempts on net, but the gap in execution decided it.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Chicago 17, San Jose 27
• Shots off target: Chicago 12, San Jose 16
• Shooting %: Chicago 35.29% (6/17), San Jose 11.11% (3/27)
• Blocked shots: Chicago 6, San Jose 9
• Goalkeeper Saves: Chicago 24, San Jose 11
• Saves %: Chicago 88.89% (24/27), San Jose 64.71% (11/17)
• Penalties: Chicago 4, San Jose 4
• PIM: Chicago 8, San Jose 8

Dallas Stars 4, Winnipeg Jets 3 (OT)

Dallas and Winnipeg traded chances, then Dallas took it in overtime. The Stars held the shot edge and got enough saves to extend and finish.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Dallas 28, Winnipeg 27
• Shots off target: Dallas 22, Winnipeg 10
• Shooting %: Dallas 14.29% (4/28), Winnipeg 11.11% (3/27)
• Blocked shots: Dallas 7, Winnipeg 19
• Goalkeeper Saves: Dallas 24, Winnipeg 24
• Saves %: Dallas 88.89% (24/27), Winnipeg 85.71% (24/28)
• Penalties: Dallas 3, Winnipeg 4
• PIM: Dallas 6, Winnipeg 8

Colorado Avalanche 0, Detroit Red Wings 2

Detroit got the only goals of the night and protected the middle. Colorado put pucks on net, but the Red Wings’ goaltending and structure held firm.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Colorado 21, Detroit 25
• Shots off target: Colorado 16, Detroit 17
• Shooting %: Colorado 0% (0/21), Detroit 8% (2/25)
• Blocked shots: Colorado 17, Detroit 15
• Goalkeeper Saves: Colorado 23, Detroit 21
• Saves %: Colorado 95.83% (23/24), Detroit 100% (21/21)
• Penalties: Colorado 3, Detroit 2
• PIM: Colorado 14, Detroit 4

Utah Mammoth 6, Vancouver Canucks 2

Utah’s finishing was ruthless, turning 20 shots into six goals. Vancouver had a slight shot edge but could not match the efficiency swing.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Utah 20, Vancouver 23
• Shots off target: Utah 14, Vancouver 12
• Shooting %: Utah 30% (6/20), Vancouver 8.7% (2/23)
• Blocked shots: Utah 10, Vancouver 9
• Goalkeeper Saves: Utah 21, Vancouver 14
• Saves %: Utah 91.3% (21/23), Vancouver 70% (14/20)
• Penalties: Utah 5, Vancouver 3
• PIM: Utah 18, Vancouver 14

Calgary Flames 2, Toronto Maple Leafs 4

Toronto handled the finishing battle and got the saves when Calgary tried to push. Calgary owned blocks, but Toronto’s conversion rate separated them.

Stats

• Shots on Goal: Calgary 30, Toronto 22
• Shots off target: Calgary 13, Toronto 13
• Shooting %: Calgary 6.67% (2/30), Toronto 18.18% (4/22)
• Blocked shots: Calgary 27, Toronto 17
• Goalkeeper Saves: Calgary 18, Toronto 28
• Saves %: Calgary 85.71% (18/21), Toronto 93.33% (28/30)
• Penalties: Calgary 1, Toronto 2
• PIM: Calgary 2, Toronto 4

Coach Mark Comment

Today was a clean example of how results split into two buckets: volume teams and efficiency teams. Buffalo and Utah were efficiency teams, and the shooting percentages tell the whole story. When a team is converting above 20% at five-on-five pace, you are not losing because of effort, you are losing because of finish and goaltending layers. Florida and Vancouver did not look short on attempts, but they were chasing save quality and slot coverage. On the other side, Detroit showed a classic shutdown win, low drama, disciplined structure, and a goaltending performance that erased the opponent’s shooting lanes.

The overtime games are the reminder that process still matters: Dallas and Minnesota stayed stable enough to let a single bounce decide it, while Nashville and St. Louis turned into a chaos game where every defensive detail got punished. If you want one practical takeaway before the Olympic break, it is this: teams that protect the house and keep their goaltender clean travel better than teams that only rely on trading chances.

Q&A

Why can a team outshoot the opponent and still lose by multiple goals?

Shot volume does not equal shot quality. If the losing team is taking low-danger shots from the outside while the opponent finishes from high-danger areas, the shooting percentage gap can decide the game quickly.

What does Shooting % really tell you in a single game?

It is a snapshot of finishing and chance quality. Extreme values often regress over time, but on a single night it can explain why the scoreboard does not match the shot count.

Why do blocked shots matter in a recap?

Blocks show defensive commitment and lane control. A high block total can mean a team protected the middle, but it can also mean they spent too much time defending.

What is the quickest way to interpret goalie performance from the stat screen?

Start with Saves % and then compare Goals Allowed versus Shots on Goal. A goalie can face high volume and still be excellent if the save rate stays strong under pressure.

How should I read PIM and penalties without play-by-play context?

Treat it as discipline and game flow. A team taking more penalties often spends more time defending, but you still need the score context to know if it was costly.

IHM NHL Daily Recap | February 1, 2026

By IceHockeyMan Newsroom | Date: February 1, 2026

Final Scores

Buffalo Sabres 2, Montreal Canadiens 4 | New York Islanders 3, Nashville Predators 4 | Ottawa Senators 4, New Jersey Devils 1 | St. Louis Blues 3, Columbus Blue Jackets 5 | Vancouver Canucks 2, Toronto Maple Leafs 3 (SO) | Utah Mammoth 2, Dallas Stars 3 | Edmonton Oilers 3, Minnesota Wild 7 | Vegas Golden Knights 2, Seattle Kraken 3

Rules of Ice Hockey.

Game-by-Game Breakdown

Buffalo Sabres 2, Montreal Canadiens 4

Montreal made their scoring chances count and built separation despite Buffalo generating a higher volume of attempts. Buffalo’s shot total was there, but the finishing edge and key saves swung the game.

Team Stat Box

• Shots on Goal: Buffalo 38 | Montreal 31
• Shots off Target: Buffalo 18 | Montreal 11
• Shooting Percentage: Buffalo 5.26% (2/38) | Montreal 12.9% (4/31)
• Blocked Shots: Buffalo 20 | Montreal 7
• Goalkeeper Saves: Buffalo 27 | Montreal 36
• Save Percentage: Buffalo 90% (27/30) | Montreal 94.74% (36/38)
• Penalties: Buffalo 3 | Montreal 4
• PIM: Buffalo 6 | Montreal 8

New York Islanders 3, Nashville Predators 4

Nashville leaned on heavy shot volume and sustained pressure, eventually converting enough to stay in front. The Islanders stayed competitive, but Nashville’s pace and repeated zone time showed up in the final result.

Team Stat Box

• Shots on Goal: New York Islanders 30 | Nashville 42
• Shots off Target: New York Islanders 9 | Nashville 14
• Shooting Percentage: New York Islanders 10% (3/30) | Nashville 9.52% (4/42)
• Blocked Shots: New York Islanders 6 | Nashville 10
• Goalkeeper Saves: New York Islanders 38 | Nashville 27
• Save Percentage: New York Islanders 90.48% (38/42) | Nashville 90% (27/30)
• Penalties: New York Islanders 4 | Nashville 5
• PIM: New York Islanders 8 | Nashville 18

Ottawa Senators 4, New Jersey Devils 1

Ottawa paired efficient scoring with strong work in key defensive moments. New Jersey struggled to turn their looks into goals, and Ottawa’s goaltending and finishing gap created a decisive margin.

Team Stat Box

• Shots on Goal: Ottawa 34 | New Jersey 27
• Shots off Target: Ottawa 10 | New Jersey 9
• Shooting Percentage: Ottawa 11.76% (4/34) | New Jersey 3.7% (1/27)
• Blocked Shots: Ottawa 10 | New Jersey 20
• Goalkeeper Saves: Ottawa 26 | New Jersey 30
• Save Percentage: Ottawa 96.3% (26/27) | New Jersey 90.91% (30/33)
• Penalties: Ottawa 6 | New Jersey 4
• PIM: Ottawa 12 | New Jersey 8

St. Louis Blues 3, Columbus Blue Jackets 5

Columbus won the conversion battle with sharper execution, turning fewer chances into more goals. St. Louis generated a healthy shot count, but Columbus’ finish and timely stops built a two-goal cushion.

Team Stat Box

• Shots on Goal: St. Louis 31 | Columbus 23
• Shots off Target: St. Louis 16 | Columbus 18
• Shooting Percentage: St. Louis 9.68% (3/31) | Columbus 21.74% (5/23)
• Blocked Shots: St. Louis 11 | Columbus 10
• Goalkeeper Saves: St. Louis 18 | Columbus 28
• Save Percentage: St. Louis 81.82% (18/22) | Columbus 90.32% (28/31)
• Penalties: St. Louis 2 | Columbus 4
• PIM: St. Louis 4 | Columbus 8

Vancouver Canucks 2, Toronto Maple Leafs 3 (SO)

This one stayed tight through the full contest, and Toronto finished the job in the shootout. Vancouver put up plenty of looks, but both teams leaned on goaltending and structure to get to extra time.

Team Stat Box

• Shots on Goal: Vancouver 30 | Toronto 41
• Shots off Target: Vancouver 14 | Toronto 25
• Shooting Percentage: Vancouver 6.67% (2/30) | Toronto 4.88% (2/41)
• Blocked Shots: Vancouver 10 | Toronto 23
• Goalkeeper Saves: Vancouver 39 | Toronto 28
• Save Percentage: Vancouver 95.12% (39/41) | Toronto 93.33% (28/30)
• Penalties: Vancouver 1 | Toronto 1
• PIM: Vancouver 2 | Toronto 2

Utah Mammoth 2, Dallas Stars 3

Dallas controlled the shot share and kept the game in their preferred lanes, while Utah had to be selective with their chances. Dallas’ volume and situational execution were enough to secure the win.

Team Stat Box

• Shots on Goal: Utah 14 | Dallas 31
• Shots off Target: Utah 12 | Dallas 18
• Shooting Percentage: Utah 14.29% (2/14) | Dallas 9.68% (3/31)
• Blocked Shots: Utah 12 | Dallas 8
• Goalkeeper Saves: Utah 28 | Dallas 12
• Save Percentage: Utah 90.32% (28/31) | Dallas 85.71% (12/14)
• Penalties: Utah 5 | Dallas 3
• PIM: Utah 10 | Dallas 6

Edmonton Oilers 3, Minnesota Wild 7

Minnesota produced a high-end finishing night and built a runaway scoreline. Edmonton generated plenty of attempts, but Minnesota’s conversion rate and save support turned it into a lopsided final.

Team Stat Box

• Shots on Goal: Edmonton 43 | Minnesota 29
• Shots off Target: Edmonton 23 | Minnesota 16
• Shooting Percentage: Edmonton 6.98% (3/43) | Minnesota 24.14% (7/29)
• Blocked Shots: Edmonton 22 | Minnesota 17
• Goalkeeper Saves: Edmonton 22 | Minnesota 40
• Save Percentage: Edmonton 75.86% (22/29) | Minnesota 93.02% (40/43)
• Penalties: Edmonton 3 | Minnesota 2
• PIM: Edmonton 6 | Minnesota 4

Vegas Golden Knights 2, Seattle Kraken 3

Seattle capitalized with better finishing and held their ground when Vegas pushed the shot count. The Kraken stayed efficient, and the underlying numbers point to a game decided by conversion and key saves.

Team Stat Box

• Shots on Goal: Vegas 29 | Seattle 23
• Shots off Target: Vegas 15 | Seattle 12
• Shooting Percentage: Vegas 6.9% (2/29) | Seattle 13.04% (3/23)
• Blocked Shots: Vegas 14 | Seattle 11
• Goalkeeper Saves: Vegas 20 | Seattle 27
• Save Percentage: Vegas 86.96% (20/23) | Seattle 93.1% (27/29)
• Penalties: Vegas 2 | Seattle 2
• PIM: Vegas 4 | Seattle 4

Coach Mark Comment

Tonight is a clean example of how scorelines can be driven by conversion rather than volume. Several teams carried the shot share but lost the finishing battle, and that is usually tied to where the attempts come from, who owns the inside lanes, and how quickly the puck moves east to west before the release. When a team is forced to shoot through layers, you see blocked shots climb and shooting percentage fall, even if the shot totals look strong.

In the tight games, the details were situational. Discipline and puck management mattered more than pace. One penalty at the wrong time, one failed clear, one soft recovery on a second chance, and the game tilts. For the teams that won, the pattern was simple: protect the middle, keep stick detail on the backcheck, and finish the defensive shift with a hard clear, not a hopeful chip.

From a coaching lens, I also like how the stat boxes tell the story in seconds. Shot volume is useful, but the real signal is the combination of shooting percentage, saves, and blocks. When you see high blocks and strong save percentage together, you are often looking at a team that defended in layers and survived the push. When you see high shooting percentage on modest shots, that is usually a team that created cleaner looks and attacked off broken structure.

Q&A

Why can a team outshoot an opponent and still lose?

Shot volume does not guarantee quality. If most attempts come from the perimeter or through traffic, shooting percentage usually drops, and the opponent’s goalie sees the puck earlier and cleaner.

What does shooting percentage tell us in a single game?

It is a snapshot of finishing and chance quality. A high number can reflect elite execution, high-danger looks, or a hot night. A low number can indicate poor lanes, low-quality attempts, or strong goaltending.

Why do blocked shots matter in a recap?

Blocks often reflect defensive structure and commitment. A high block total can mean the defending team protected the slot and forced attempts into bodies instead of into clean shooting lanes.

How should fans interpret save percentage in the stat box?

It shows how well the goalie performed against shots on goal, but it does not tell the full story of shot quality. Still, it is one of the fastest indicators of whether goaltending swung the game.

What is the simplest coaching takeaway from a night like this?

Create cleaner looks, not just more looks. Win the inside lane, move the puck laterally before the shot, and defend the slot with layers. That combination drives results over time.