Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · FLA at BUF

Sabres shut out the Panthers, 3-0

FinalSat, Oct 18

The verdict · stolen

The Sabres stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.30–3.14 and won anyway.

FLA 0 · BUF 3

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:58 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 shutout looked like grand larceny. The Panthers controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5 and generated five high-danger chances to Buffalo's one—a thoroughgoing dominance that went unrewarded. Instead, the Sabres won on goaltending, rushing, and power-play lethal focus.

A. Lyon's performance was decisive. All 32 shots stopped; 4.3 goals above expected—the kind of night that steals games entire. Among high-danger chances, five stops from five attempts—a perfect mark that ended any Panthers momentum.

The turning point came early: Owen Power's tip-in at 14:20 of the second period. From there, Florida's quality chances withered against Buffalo's execution. The Sabres scored three times from 26 rush attempts, a conversion rate most teams chase for a full season. Buffalo's power play amplified the advantage, converting two of nine attempts.

S. Bobrovsky, meanwhile, faced a tide of low-quality chances and found himself unable to stem the rush goals. At 0.903, his save percentage masked a deeper problem: his team's inability to finish. Florida went 0-for-5 on high-danger opportunities, wasting the territorial control that normally presages victory.

The scoreboard reads 3-0, but the game belonged to Buffalo's goaltender and its ability to hurt on transition. Florida played the better team game. The Sabres played the smarter one.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 18

FLA

BUF

Sabres shut out the Panthers, 3-0

Chances 4.3 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

4.30

BUF

3.14

58% of the chances42%

The board read FLA 0, BUF 3. The chances read FLA 4.3, BUF 3.1.

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

Luck check

BUF

−0.1

goals above expected

BUF3.14 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA4.30 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers left 4.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 07:13BUFJ. DoanPP0–1
P2 11:12BUFJ. DoanPP0–2
P2 14:20BUFO. Power0–3

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

56 shots

Final

102 shots

BUF

46 shots

FLA BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLABUF

0 / 5

1.11 xG

High danger

1 / 1

0.18 xG

0 / 19

2.27 xG

Medium

2 / 20

2.24 xG

0 / 54

0.92 xG

Low

0 / 42

0.72 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

A. Lyon

+4.3

BUF · 32/32

S. Bobrovsky

+0.1

FLA · 28/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres shut out the Panthers, 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 12–8

07:13BUFJ. Doanpower play(T. Thompson, R. Dahlin)0–1

2ndshots 10–13

11:12BUFJ. Doanpower play(J. Zucker, Z. Benson)0–2
14:20BUFO. Power(A. Tuch, P. Krebs)0–3

3rdshots 10–10no goals

score reads FLA–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.14

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.048

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.30Expected goals3.14

FLA 58% of the chance quality

32Shots on goal31

5High-danger chances1

78All attempts (Corsi)63

Adjusted for score: FLA 60% · BUF 40%

Faceoffs · BUF won43%off46%neu60%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA0 / 5 · 1.11 xG

BUF1 / 1 · 0.18 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA0 / 19 · 2.27 xG

BUF2 / 20 · 2.24 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA0 / 54 · 0.92 xG

BUF0 / 42 · 0.72 xG

FLA went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.27 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

0 G · 4.30 xG · -4.3

BUF

3 G · 3.14 xG · -0.1

012345

FLA finished -4.3 against expected, BUF -0.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST0/32

TIP IN0/6

SNAP0/7

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/5

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/22

BUF

WRIST0/22

TIP IN2/5

SNAP0/4

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/5

DEFLECTED1/4

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/17

FLA

BUF

Off the rush

0 G on 27

2.29 xG

3 G on 26

2.12 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 7

0.96 xG

0 G on 3

0.31 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-32, BUF 0-for-22. BUF 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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 28/31 · .903

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/10.2-0.8

Medium2/202.2+0.2

Low0/420.7+0.7

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 · 32/32 · 1.000

+4.3

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.1+1.1

Medium0/192.3+2.3

Low0/540.9+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

102 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

56 shots

Final

102 shots

BUF

46 shots

FLA BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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

J. Doan

#91 · R · —

2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 13:55 on ice

O. Power

#25 · D · —

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 23:44 on ice · +1

R. Dahlin

#26 · D · —

0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:36 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:57 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

Buffalo projects as a 53% favorite in a tight matchup, with oddsmakers landing around 2.5 to 2.7 goals separating these teams. This is about as close to a pick'em as modern analytics gets.

The season numbers reveal a near-perfect balance. Florida dominates possession: their 52.0% Corsi indicates they will control play and accumulate shot volume. Buffalo counters with superior shot quality. Florida's expected goals percentage of 49.0% trails Buffalo's 50.0%, a discrepancy that suggests Buffalo has capitalized more efficiently on their chances.

Buffalo's fortune, though, appears borrowed. Their PDO of 1.020 represents a run of unsustainable luck — regression is coming. Florida's 0.989 PDO suggests they have moved in the opposite direction.

Florida's offensive landscape carries uncertainty. Sam Bennett generates 0.97 xG per 60 with 18 goals, 19 assists, and 6 high-danger conversions at 13.1% shooting, but a lower-body injury leaves him day-to-day. Brad Marchand, producing 0.93 xG per 60 with 17 goals, 9 assists, and 3 high-danger goals at 19.5% shooting, is sidelined for the season. Buffalo faces an opponent without full firepower.

Buffalo arrives intact. Jason Zucker operates at 1.07 xG per 60 with 14 goals, 14 assists, and 6 high-danger goals at 15.1% shooting. Josh Doan matches that intensity: 1.01 xG per 60, 15 goals, 18 assists, and 2 high-danger goals at 11.5% shooting. Both players offer Buffalo multiple scoring avenues.

The game hinges on Florida's ability to convert possession into goals and Buffalo's capacity to sustain a PDO that defies probability. Florida dominates possession; Buffalo converts at a higher rate. The projection reflects this balance: essentially a coin flip.

Three things to watch:

The pace of play — Florida's territorial advantage should manifest in shot volume and cycle time.
Buffalo's conversion in open ice — Zucker and Doan thrive in transition; Florida's defense will test their discipline.
Depth without Bennett and Marchand — Can Florida's secondary scoring sustain output against an intact Buffalo lineup?

Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 53%

53%

BUF

Model favorite

47%

53%

FLA50BUF

BUF by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 2.5–2.7 BUF; 18% 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

FLA← edge

edge →BUF

49.0%50.0%

52.0%49.0%

2.482.55

2.562.55

1.982.35

2.211.90

0.9891.020

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

FLA

5-5-0

+2 GD · 2d rest

BUF

4-5-1

-2 GD · 3d rest

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

FLA drives Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

BUF PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

FLA drives Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
BUF PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

FLA

Expected in goal

D. Tarasov

2 days rest.909 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

3 days rest.892 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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