Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
Breakdown · PIT at NYR

Penguins shut out the Rangers, 3-0

The verdict · earned

The Penguins earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

PIT 3 · NYR 0
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 1:42 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Pittsburgh proved that volume isn't destiny. New York mustered 45% of shot attempts (25–31 on goal) but collected just 41% of expected goals—a gap that became insurmountable when the Rangers couldn't bury their chances.

The Penguins controlled the underlying numbers decisively. Pittsburgh generated 4.21 xG to New York's 2.91, a 59–41 split. More importantly, PIT's average shot carried 0.069 xG, vs. 0.049 for NYR—evidence of a cleaner attack. Pittsburgh converted 2 goals on 26 rush attempts; the Rangers managed 0 on five high-danger chances.

A. Silovs was the story that didn't need to be told. The Pittsburgh goalie stopped all 25 shots and saved 2.91 goals above expected. I. Shesterkin, meanwhile, made 28 of 29 saves (+3.21 above expected) and still watched his team get shut out. His performance was excellent. His offense wasn't.

The turning point came early: Blake Lizotte's wrist shot from the wing at 18:08 of the first period. From there, New York couldn't recover. The Rangers' 0-for-5 on high-danger chances underperformed even pessimistic expectations. They created five rebound opportunities and converted none. That won't happen often—but it happened tonight.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 7
PIT
3
NYR
0

Penguins shut out the Rangers, 3-0

Chances 4.2 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
4.21
NYR
2.91
59% of the chances41%

The board read PIT 3, NYR 0. The chances read PIT 4.2, NYR 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
−1.2
goals above expected
PIT4.21 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR2.91 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Rangers left 2.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 19:28PITJ. Brazeau1–0
  2. P3 17:48PITJ. BrazeauEN2–0
  3. P3 18:08PITB. LizotteEN3–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
41 shots
3
Final
79 shots
NYR
38 shots
0
PIT attackNYR attack
PIT NYR Goal
41
shots · 3 in
38
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITNYR
2 / 7
2.40 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.13 xG
1 / 14
1.34 xG
Medium
0 / 10
1.16 xG
0 / 40
0.47 xG
Low
0 / 45
0.62 xG

The Rangers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
I. Shesterkin
+3.2
NYR · 28/29
A+
A. Silovs
+2.9
PIT · 25/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins shut out the Rangers, 3-0

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 8–7
  1. 19:28PITJ. Brazeau(E. Malkin)1–0
2ndshots 8–13no goals
    3rdshots 15–5
    1. 17:48PITJ. Brazeauempty net(E. Malkin, A. Mantha)2–0
    2. 18:08PITB. Lizotteempty net(R. Shea, C. Dewar)3–0

    score reads PIT–NYR

    Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
    Process vs result

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.21
    PIT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.049
    PIT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    50.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.21Expected goals2.91
    PIT 59% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal25
    7High-danger chances5
    61All attempts (Corsi)60
    Adjusted for score: PIT 47% · NYR 53%
    Faceoffs · NYR won40%off67%neu44%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PIT2 / 7 · 2.40 xG
    NYR0 / 5 · 1.13 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PIT1 / 14 · 1.34 xG
    NYR0 / 10 · 1.16 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PIT0 / 40 · 0.47 xG
    NYR0 / 45 · 0.62 xG

    NYR went 0-for-10 from medium danger on 1.16 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
    The luck layer

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PIT
    3 G · 4.21 xG · -1.2
    NYR
    0 G · 2.91 xG · -2.9
    012345

    PIT finished -1.2 against expected, NYR -2.9.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PIT
    WRIST2/24
    SNAP0/8
    BACKHAND1/6
    SLAP0/0
    TIP IN0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    OTHER0/20
    NYR
    WRIST0/17
    SNAP0/8
    BACKHAND0/3
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN0/4
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/22
    PIT
    NYR
    Off the rush
    2 G on 26
    2.81 xG
    0 G on 21
    1.62 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.82 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.84 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 2-for-24, NYR 0-for-17. PIT scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
    New to these numbers?

    Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

    The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

    xG
    Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
    HD
    High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
    Corsi
    Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
    Adj.
    Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
    GSAx
    Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
    PDO
    Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
    Shot by shot

    In the net

    Graded on goals saved above expected
    A. Silovs
    PIT · 25/25 · 1.000
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.1+1.1
    Medium0/101.2+1.2
    Low0/450.6+0.6

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    I. Shesterkin
    NYR · 28/29 · .966
    +3.2
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/72.4+0.4
    Medium1/141.3+0.3
    Low0/400.5+0.5

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    79 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PIT
    41 shots
    3
    Final
    79 shots
    NYR
    38 shots
    0
    PIT attackNYR attack
    PIT NYR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, NYR right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

    Ranked from the box score

    Three stars

    Points first
    Three stars · computed, not voted
    E. Malkin
    #71 · C · —
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:28 on ice · +2
    J. Brazeau
    #16 · R · —
    2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 12:49 on ice · +2
    R. Shea
    #5 · D · —
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:31 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Oct 7
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelSep 21, 11:56 PMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

    The model projects a 3.2–3.2 game with the Penguins at 51% win probability: no daylight between these two.

    Pittsburgh owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Penguins sit at 50.8% xG% and 50.2% Corsi%, while New York trails at 47.5% xG% and 48.6% Corsi%. In close games, those margins separate who controls the shot from who's chasing it. The Penguins' 1.012 PDO and the Rangers' 1.009 sit beside each other—neither team running hot enough to skew the outcome.

    That structural edge rests on Filip Hallander. The Penguins' driver generates chances at 1.28 xG/60 with 0G 3A—a playmaker without a goal. The Rangers' job is simple: neutralize Hallander, and Pittsburgh loses its gas.

    But Pittsburgh has a second engine. Rickard Rakell carries 1.01 xG/60, 13G 13A, 3 high-danger goals, and a 12.1% shooting rate. If Rakell's finishing holds, neutralizing Hallander alone doesn't slow the Penguins.

    New York's answer is Adam Sykora. At 0.91 xG/60 with 3G 1A and a 20.0% shooting rate, he's scoring without high-danger chances—an unsustainable finishing run. That's the kind of streak that decides pick'em games. Gabe Perreault steadies the Rangers' balance: 0.79 xG/60, 8G 11A, 2 high-danger goals, 13.1% shooting. The Penguins' task mirrors Pittsburgh's: contain Sykora's scoring, and New York's offense flattens.

    Here's the wrinkle: both teams sit at 0% on high-danger and rebound goals, which means scoring is either quality-starved or luck-depleted. Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones and New York's Vincent Iorio emerge as defensive weak links. If one cracks, the other team's shooters inherit space.

    In the end, this is a game of countermeasures. The Rangers must shut down Hallander while riding Sykora's unsustainable streak. The Penguins must trust Rakell's finishing while containing Sykora. The model can't split a difference that narrow. Neither can we.

    Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 51%
    51%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    PIT50NYR

    PIT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 3.2–3.2 NYR; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

    Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
    Season rates · 5v5

    Tale of the tape

    NHL stats API · our xG
    PIT← edge
    edge →NYR
    50.8%47.5%
    50.2%48.6%
    3.312.87
    3.203.18
    3.542.87
    3.153.04
    1.0121.009

    PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.009) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    PIT
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    NYR
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.009
    NYR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    STRENGTHPIT

    Filip Hallander drives the Penguins offense

    Filip Hallander: 0G 3A, 1.28 xG/60.

    TACTICALNYR

    Shutdown Assignment: Rangers

    Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Hallander (0G, 1.28 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Hallander (0G, 1.28 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

    TACTICALPIT

    Shutdown Assignment: Penguins

    Key matchup: Neutralize Adam Sykora (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Adam Sykora (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

    WARNINGPIT

    Exploitable minutes: Caleb Jones

    Caleb Jones is on ice for 3.26 xGA/60 and 4 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Caleb Jones's shifts with the top line.

    Where the edges live
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 50.8% 5v5 xG vs 47.5%.
    Things to watch
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 50.8% 5v5 xG vs 47.5%.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    PIT
    Filip Hallander0G 3A
    1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
    Rickard Rakell13G 13A
    1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
    NYR
    Adam Sykora3G 1A
    0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
    Gabe Perreault8G 11A
    0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next