Breakdown · NYR at PIT

Rangers pull away from the Penguins

FinalSat, Oct 11

NYRNew York Rangers6 PITPittsburgh Penguins1

The verdict · earned

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

NYR 6 · PIT 1

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:24 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

I. Shesterkin stole this game, which made the 6-1 scoreline feel like a rout even in a competitive underlying matchup. NYR's netminder saved 1.92 goals above expected—the margin of dominance. A. Silovs gave up 2.00 more than expected, inverting the equation on Pittsburgh's side.

The underlying control favored New York: 58% of 5v5 expected goals (4.00–2.92) and 10 high-danger chances to Pittsburgh's five. Yet the teams remained reasonably close in shot volume—Pittsburgh held 39% of attempts (19–30 on goal). The edge wasn't crushing, but it was clear.

Pittsburgh's killer flaw: zero conversions on five high-danger chances. That won't happen often, and it explains the gap between a competitive game state and a lopsided final score. NYR answered with ruthless efficiency, scoring twice from low-danger spots—the kind of margin that separates wins from route jobs. The Rangers were equally lethal on the rush, netting three goals on 23 chances.

Taylor Raddysh's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 14:12) marked the turning point, tilting a manageable deficit into a rout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 11

NYR

PIT

Rangers pull away from the Penguins

Chances 4.0 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Rangers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

NYR

4.00

PIT

2.92

58% of the chances42%

The board read NYR 6, PIT 1. The chances read NYR 4.0, PIT 2.9.

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

Luck check

NYR

+2.0

goals above expected

NYR4.00 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT2.92 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Rangers scored 2.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 07:40NYRM. ZibanejadSH1–0
P2 03:04PITB. Kindel1–1
P2 06:06NYRA. Fox2–1
P2 09:25NYRW. CuyllePP3–1
P2 16:38NYRA. FoxPP4–1
P3 05:40NYRM. Rempe5–1
P3 14:12NYRT. Raddysh6–1

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

Where the shots came from

NYR

38 shots

Final

72 shots

PIT

34 shots

NYR PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NYRPIT

1 / 10

2.16 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.28 xG

3 / 11

1.41 xG

Medium

0 / 10

1.17 xG

2 / 39

0.43 xG

Low

1 / 31

0.47 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 5 from the slot.

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

In the net

I. Shesterkin

+1.9

NYR · 18/19

A. Silovs

−2.0

PIT · 24/30

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Rangers pull away from the Penguins

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 4–9

07:40NYRM. Zibanejadshorthanded(S. Carrick, A. Fox)1–0

2ndshots 14–3

03:04PITB. Kindel(C. Jones)1–1
06:06NYRA. Fox(A. Edstrom)2–1
09:25NYRW. Cuyllepower play(C. Sheary, N. Laba)3–1
16:38NYRA. Foxpower play(A. Panarin, J. Miller)4–1

3rdshots 12–7

05:40NYRM. Rempe(A. Edstrom, S. Carrick)5–1
14:12NYRT. Raddysh(N. Laba, J. Parssinen)6–1

score reads NYR–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.00

NYR chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.078

NYR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

56.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.00Expected goals2.92

NYR 58% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal19

10High-danger chances5

60All attempts (Corsi)46

Adjusted for score: NYR 51% · PIT 49%

Faceoffs · PIT won61%off60%neu35%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NYR1 / 10 · 2.16 xG

PIT0 / 5 · 1.28 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NYR3 / 11 · 1.41 xG

PIT0 / 10 · 1.17 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NYR2 / 39 · 0.43 xG

PIT1 / 31 · 0.47 xG

NYR went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.41 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NYR

6 G · 4.00 xG · +2.0

PIT

1 G · 2.92 xG · -1.9

01234567

NYR finished +2.0 against expected, PIT -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NYR

WRIST4/22

BACKHAND0/5

SNAP0/2

TIP IN0/3

SLAP0/2

DEFLECTED2/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/22

PIT

WRIST1/23

BACKHAND0/2

SNAP0/3

TIP IN0/2

SLAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/12

NYR

PIT

Off the rush

3 G on 23

2.81 xG

1 G on 20

2.00 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 5

0.76 xG

0 G on 3

0.41 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NYR went 4-for-22, PIT 1-for-23. NYR 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. Shesterkin

NYR · 18/19 · .947

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.3+1.3

Medium0/101.2+1.2

Low1/310.5-0.5

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

A. Silovs

PIT · 24/30 · .800

-2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/102.2+1.2

Medium3/111.4-1.6

Low2/390.4-1.6

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

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NYR

38 shots

Final

72 shots

PIT

34 shots

NYR PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NYR 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

A. Fox

#23 · D · —

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:41 on ice · +3

S. Carrick

#39 · C · —

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 15:36 on ice · +3

N. Laba

#42 · C · —

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 12:43 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:46 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

The model projects Pittsburgh to win this game 56% of the time, with an expected final score around 3.0–3.4 favoring the Penguins. That conviction rests entirely on five-on-five play: Pittsburgh generates 50.8% of expected goals to New York's 47.5%, controls the puck (50.2% Corsi) and edges them in shot luck too (1.012 PDO to 1.009).

Filip Hallander drives Pittsburgh's advantage. At 1.28 xG/60, he's the highest-volume offensive creator either side will ice—though he's still scoreless, with 3 assists. The Penguins' task: keep Hallander free. New York's task: the opposite. Adam Sykora, the Rangers' dangerous winger with 3 goals and 0.91 xG/60, cannot be the driving force if Pittsburgh wants to hold its edge.

Beyond Hallander, the matchups cut both ways. Gabe Perreault (0.79 xG/60, 8 goals and 11 assists at 13.1% shooting) remains dangerous despite a lower chance volume than Sykora. Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals and 13 assists, 3 from high-danger areas) is Pittsburgh's secondary threat and a player the Rangers cannot afford to lose focus on midshift.

Both teams have been unusually sterile in the hard areas. New York has scored on 0% of its high-danger chances and 0% of its rebound attempts—unsustainable. Pittsburgh sits identically at 0%. One or both will find the back of the net when it matters, which makes the underlying advantage less decisive than the xG% alone suggests.

The Penguins' edge on the underlying numbers is real, but it's narrow. Vincent Iorio has been New York's weakest defensive link, and Caleb Jones carries that role for Pittsburgh. A breakdown in either spot, with Hallander or Rakell armed and moving, could flip the game in an instant.

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%

NYR50PIT

PIT by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NYR 3.0–3.4 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

NYR← edge

edge →PIT

47.5%50.8%

48.6%50.2%

2.873.31

3.183.20

2.873.54

3.043.15

1.0091.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.009 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

NYR

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

PIT

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.009

NYR 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 Adam Sykora (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

TACTICALNYR

Shutdown Assignment: Rangers

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

WARNINGNYR

Exploitable minutes: Vincent Iorio

Vincent Iorio is on ice for 3.12 xGA/60 and 27 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Vincent Iorio'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

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

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