Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · NYI at PIT

Penguins hold off the Islanders

FinalThu, Oct 9

NYINew York Islanders3 PITPittsburgh Penguins4

The verdict · coin flip

The Penguins won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

NYI 3 · PIT 4

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:13 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

Despite a 37–28 shot advantage, New York fell to Pittsburgh 4–3. The underlying numbers were nearly a coin flip—xG favored Pittsburgh 3.79–3.63—but the Penguins' finishing and Jarry's goaltending made the difference.

Expected goals barely moved the needle, yet high-danger chances told a harsher story. Pittsburgh dominated 9–1, a gap that forecasted the result more accurately than raw shot volume. This is what separates a shot and a scoring chance: the Islanders fired from distance; the Penguins shot when it mattered.

Jarry's 0.919 save percentage (+0.63 versus expected) was crucial. Sorokin faced a more efficient attack: 24 saves on 28 shots (0.857 SV%), but the Penguins' accuracy from dangerous ice wore him down.

Pittsburgh weaponized the rush. Three goals came in transition on just 24 chances—a lethal rate. The power play added two more on ten attempts, generating 1.19 expected goals. New York matched Pittsburgh's three rush goals but needed 35 chances to get there, underscoring the gulf in efficiency.

The turning point came early: Justin Brazeau's backhander from the doorstep at 14:21 of the third period gave Pittsburgh breathing room.

Three Stars

#71 E. Malkin — 3A in 18:11
#67 R. Rakell — 1G, 1A in 20:01
#87 S. Crosby — 1G, 1A in 19:30

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 9

NYI

PIT

Penguins hold off the Islanders

Chances 3.6 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Penguins took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

NYI

3.63

PIT

3.79

49% of the chances51%

The board read NYI 3, PIT 4. The chances read NYI 3.6, PIT 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

PIT

+0.2

goals above expected

PIT3.79 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

NYI3.63 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 03:23PITR. RakellPP0–1
P1 12:02NYIJ. Drouin1–1
P2 04:04NYIK. Palmieri2–1
P2 05:41PITH. Brunicke2–2
P2 08:58PITS. CrosbyPP2–3
P2 19:19NYIM. Shabanov3–3
P3 14:21PITJ. Brazeau3–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

NYI

49 shots

Final

90 shots

PIT

41 shots

NYI PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NYIPIT

0 / 1

0.58 xG

High danger

3 / 9

2.04 xG

2 / 23

2.38 xG

Medium

1 / 11

1.20 xG

1 / 45

0.68 xG

Low

0 / 36

0.56 xG

The Penguins buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

T. Jarry

+0.6

PIT · 34/37

I. Sorokin

−0.2

NYI · 24/28

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins hold off the Islanders

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 12–11

03:23PITR. Rakellpower play(E. Malkin, S. Crosby)0–1
12:02NYIJ. Drouin(M. Schaefer)1–1

2ndshots 13–9

04:04NYIK. Palmieri(M. Barzal, S. Mayfield)2–1
05:41PITH. Brunicke(F. Hallander, T. Novak)2–2
08:58PITS. Crosbypower play(E. Malkin, R. Rakell)2–3
19:19NYIM. Shabanov(S. Holmstrom)3–3

3rdshots 12–8

14:21PITJ. Brazeau(E. Malkin, A. Mantha)3–4

score reads NYI–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.79

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.028

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.63Expected goals3.79

PIT 51% of the chance quality

37Shots on goal28

1High-danger chances9

69All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: NYI 56% · PIT 44%

Faceoffs · PIT won20%off50%neu59%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NYI0 / 1 · 0.58 xG

PIT3 / 9 · 2.04 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NYI2 / 23 · 2.38 xG

PIT1 / 11 · 1.20 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NYI1 / 45 · 0.68 xG

PIT0 / 36 · 0.56 xG

PIT went 3-for-9 from high danger on 2.04 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NYI

3 G · 3.63 xG · -0.6

PIT

4 G · 3.79 xG · +0.2

012345

NYI finished -0.6 against expected, PIT +0.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NYI

WRIST1/26

SNAP2/7

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/20

PIT

WRIST0/22

SNAP1/3

SLAP0/3

TIP IN1/6

BACKHAND2/6

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT0/1

OTHER0/15

NYI

PIT

Off the rush

3 G on 35

2.49 xG

3 G on 24

2.43 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.64 xG

1 G on 7

0.96 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NYI went 1-for-26, PIT 0-for-22. NYI scored 3 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

I. Sorokin

NYI · 24/28 · .857

-0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/92.0-1.0

Medium1/111.2+0.2

Low0/360.6+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

T. Jarry

PIT · 34/37 · .919

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.6+0.6

Medium2/232.4+0.4

Low1/450.7-0.3

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NYI

49 shots

Final

90 shots

PIT

41 shots

NYI PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NYI left, PIT 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 · 3 A · 4 SOG · 18:11 on ice

R. Rakell

#67 · R · —

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:01 on ice

S. Crosby

#87 · C · —

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:30 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:19 AMEdited 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 controls the underlying play. The model projects a 3.2–3.5 goal game favoring the Penguins, who own 56% win probability. Their 50.8% expected-goal share vs. New York's 47.7% reflects crisper shot placement and volume; the Corsi gap (50.2% to 49.0%) confirms Pittsburgh sustained possession through the minutes.

New York rides Anders Lee—the engine of their offense at 1.20 xG/60 with 9 goals, 20 assists, and a 6.4% shooting rate. Lee has 2 high-danger goals on top of that volume; the Penguins will task someone with neutralizing him. Bo Horvat (0.87 xG/60, 18 goals, 12.8% shooting) offers secondary punch but sits lower in volume.

Pittsburgh's advantage runs through Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60, 0 goals, 3 assists) and Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 HD goals). Rakell has converted at 12.1% and feeds the model's lean; Hallander's assist rate and shot generation matter more than his goal total in this spot.

The Penguins' superior PDO (1.012 to New York's 0.992) signals regression risk, but their baseline xG advantage is real. Expect Pittsburgh to win the play; expect New York to hunt for a lucky bounce or early goal to compress the game.

Players to Watch

Islanders

Anders Lee — 1.20 xG/60, 9G 20A, 2 HD goals, 6.4% shooting
Bo Horvat — 0.87 xG/60, 18G 10A, 3 HD goals, 12.8% shooting

Penguins

Filip Hallander — 1.28 xG/60, 0G 3A
Rickard Rakell — 1.01 xG/60, 13G 13A, 3 HD goals, 12.1% shooting

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

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 56%

56%

PIT

Model favorite

44%

56%

NYI50PIT

PIT by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NYI 3.2–3.5 PIT; 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

NYI← edge

edge →PIT

47.7%50.8%

49.0%50.2%

3.133.31

3.433.20

2.793.54

2.883.15

0.9921.012

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

NYI

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

PIT

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.992

NYI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT 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.

TACTICALPIT

Shutdown Assignment: Penguins

Key matchup: Neutralize Anders Lee (9G, 1.20 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

TACTICALNYI

Shutdown Assignment: Islanders

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

STRENGTHNYI

Anders Lee drives the Islanders offense

Anders Lee: 9G 20A, 1.20 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.

Where the edges live

The Penguins own the underlying play — 50.8% 5v5 xG vs 47.7%.

Things to watch

The Penguins own the underlying play — 50.8% 5v5 xG vs 47.7%.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

NYI

Anders Lee9G 20A

1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh

Bo Horvat18G 10A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page