Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · OTT at BUF

Sabres pull away from the Senators

FinalWed, Oct 15

The verdict · stolen

The Sabres stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.95–3.60 and won anyway.

OTT 4 · BUF 8

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:49 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

Buffalo's 8-4 victory looks lopsided, but the underlying metrics suggest otherwise. Expected goals split 3.60–3.95 in Ottawa's favor, yet the Sabres overperformed their share by 4.40 goals — elite execution that closed the expected gap and delivered a rout.

Buffalo didn't dominate raw volume. Shot attempts were 27-37 in Ottawa's favor, and high-danger chances went 4-5 in a marginal split. What mattered was efficiency. Buffalo generated 0.086 expected goals per shot; Ottawa produced 0.051. That difference was the game.

The gap widened on rush conversions. Buffalo buried six goals on 19 rush chances; Ottawa scored three on 27. Buffalo's power play sealed it: three goals on seven shots (0.53 xG), clinical when stakes matter.

Goaltending decided the margin. L. Meriläinen stopped 19 of 26 (0.731 save percentage), finishing 3.40 goals worse than expected — a historic underperformance. A. Lyon answered with 33 of 37 (0.892 SV%), steady excellence that sustains a blowout.

Buffalo's depth showed in the assist column. Z. Benson led with four assists in 16:52, followed by J. Spence with three in 17:59 and J. Doan with three in 13:55 — multiple contributors, minimal ice time.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 15

OTT

BUF

Sabres pull away from the Senators

Chances 4.0 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

OTT

3.95

BUF

3.60

52% of the chances48%

The board read OTT 4, BUF 8. The chances read OTT 4.0, BUF 3.6.

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

Luck check

BUF

+4.4

goals above expected

BUF3.60 expected · 8 scored

Expected

Scored

OTT3.95 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Sabres scored 4.4 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 08:01BUFJ. QuinnPP0–1
P1 16:09OTTT. Stützle1–1
P2 03:58OTTJ. SandersonPP2–1
P2 06:46BUFR. McLeodSH2–2
P2 10:17BUFA. Tuch2–3
P2 11:46BUFJ. ZuckerPP2–4
P2 13:43BUFJ. ZuckerPP2–5

+5 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

OTT

52 shots

Final

84 shots

BUF

32 shots

OTT BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 8 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

OTTBUF

1 / 5

1.03 xG

High danger

1 / 4

1.37 xG

3 / 18

1.98 xG

Medium

7 / 14

1.80 xG

0 / 55

0.93 xG

Low

0 / 24

0.44 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 1 of 5, BUF 1 of 4.

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

In the net

A. Lyon

−0.1

BUF · 33/37

L. Meriläinen

−3.4

OTT · 19/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres pull away from the Senators

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 8–3

08:01BUFJ. Quinnpower play(B. Byram, R. Dahlin)0–1
16:09OTTT. Stützle(F. Zetterlund, J. Spence)1–1

2ndshots 17–20

03:58OTTJ. Sandersonpower play(R. Greig, D. Cozens)2–1
06:46BUFR. McLeodshorthanded(Z. Benson, O. Power)2–2
10:17BUFA. Tuch(J. Bryson, J. Doan)2–3
11:46BUFJ. Zuckerpower play(R. Dahlin, Z. Benson)2–4
13:43BUFJ. Zuckerpower play(J. Doan, T. Thompson)2–5

3rdshots 12–4

00:40OTTS. Pinto(J. Spence, J. Sanderson)3–5
02:15OTTL. Eller(N. Cousins, J. Spence)4–5
02:32BUFR. McLeod(A. Tuch, J. Doan)4–6
03:17BUFJ. Quinn(P. Krebs, Z. Benson)4–7
16:44BUFJ. Kulichempty net(T. Thompson, Z. Benson)4–8

score reads OTT–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.60

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+4.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.139

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

35.0%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.95Expected goals3.60

OTT 52% of the chance quality

37Shots on goal27

5High-danger chances4

78All attempts (Corsi)42

Adjusted for score: OTT 68% · BUF 32%

Faceoffs · BUF won15%off43%neu70%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

OTT1 / 5 · 1.03 xG

BUF1 / 4 · 1.37 xG

Medium dangermid-range

OTT3 / 18 · 1.98 xG

BUF7 / 14 · 1.80 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

OTT0 / 55 · 0.93 xG

BUF0 / 24 · 0.44 xG

BUF went 7-for-14 from medium danger on 1.80 expected goals — 5.2 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

OTT

4 G · 3.95 xG · +0.1

BUF

8 G · 3.60 xG · +4.4

0123456789

OTT finished +0.1 against expected, BUF +4.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

OTT

WRIST1/31

SNAP0/9

SLAP1/4

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN1/2

WRAP AROUND0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE1/1

OTHER0/26

BUF

WRIST5/17

SNAP0/4

SLAP1/4

BACKHAND1/3

TIP IN1/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/10

OTT

BUF

Off the rush

3 G on 27

1.98 xG

6 G on 19

2.15 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.75 xG

1 G on 6

1.01 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-31, BUF 5-for-17. BUF scored 6 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

L. Meriläinen

OTT · 19/26 · .731

-3.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.4+0.4

Medium7/141.8-5.2

Low0/240.4+0.4

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. Lyon

BUF · 33/37 · .892

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.0+0.0

Medium3/182.0-1.0

Low0/550.9+0.9

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

OTT

52 shots

Final

84 shots

BUF

32 shots

OTT BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, BUF 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

Z. Benson

#6 · L · —

0 G · 4 A · 2 SOG · 16:52 on ice · +1

J. Spence

#10 · D · —

0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 17:59 on ice · +3

J. Doan

#91 · R · —

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 13:55 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Oct 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:40 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 can't separate them. Ottawa carries 52% win probability and a projected 3.2-3.1 edge, but this is a pick'em.

Underlying numbers favor the Senators. They own 54.8% 5v5 xG and 52.6% Corsi to Buffalo's 50.6% and 49.6%. Process wins rarely get overturned, but they do.

The Sabres are hot. Buffalo's 1.020 PDO says they're outscoring expected output. Ottawa's 0.993 means the reverse. Regression arrives sooner or later.

Brady Tkachuk leads the Senators offense at 1.19 xG/60. His 7.5% shooting rate has yielded 11 goals and 20 assists, including 2 high-danger goals—volume at the point. Jason Zucker leads Buffalo at 1.07 xG/60 but converts at 15.1%, producing 14 goals and 14 assists with 6 high-danger goals—the opposite mix. Dylan Cozens (13G 15A, 1.00 xG/60) and Josh Doan (15G 18A, 1.01 xG/60) supplement both attacks.

Execution becomes central. Buffalo must check Tkachuk's volume; Ottawa must contain Zucker's danger. Defensive liability matters. Nick Jensen for the Senators and Jack Quinn for the Sabres mark the weak links.

The Senators' process edge is real but modest. The Sabres' shooting spike is real but unsustainable. Neither advantage is decisive, so the model settles on even.

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

OTT 52%

52%

OTT

Model favorite

52%

48%

OTT50BUF

OTT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 3.3–3.1 BUF; 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

OTT← edge

edge →BUF

54.8%50.6%

52.6%49.6%

3.343.24

2.753.16

3.353.45

2.992.93

0.9931.020

OTT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

OTT

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

BUF

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.993

OTT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALBUF

Shutdown Assignment: Sabres

Key matchup: Neutralize Brady Tkachuk (11G, 1.19 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

TACTICALOTT

Shutdown Assignment: Senators

Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Zucker (14G, 1.07 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

STRENGTHOTT

Brady Tkachuk drives the Senators offense

Brady Tkachuk: 11G 20A, 1.19 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.

WARNINGOTT

Exploitable minutes: Nick Jensen

Nick Jensen is on ice for 2.45 xGA/60 and 36 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Nick Jensen's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Senators own the underlying play — 54.8% 5v5 xG vs 50.6%.

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Senators own the underlying play — 54.8% 5v5 xG vs 50.6%.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

OTT

Brady Tkachuk11G 20A

1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh

Dylan Cozens13G 15A

1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh

BUF

Jason Zucker14G 14A

1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh

Josh Doan15G 18A

1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page