Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Sat, Oct 18 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at SJS

Penguins shut out the Sharks, 3-0

FinalSat, Oct 18
PITPittsburgh Penguins3SJSSan Jose Sharks0
The verdict · earned

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

PIT 3 · SJS 0
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:10 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

San Jose generated the chances but couldn't finish. The Sharks produced 3.22 expected goals yet landed zero past T. Jarry, who stopped 3.22 goals above expected and saved all five high-danger shots.

The scoreline—a 3-0 Pittsburgh victory—masks a closer underlying game. San Jose's shot quality was lower (0.050 xG/shot vs PIT's 0.072), yet the expected-goals split favored Pittsburgh only slightly, 46–54 percent. By that measure, this was a coin flip.

Execution decided it. San Jose had five high-danger chances and converted zero. That kind of drought won't recur. Pittsburgh scored twice on 24 rush chances. Both goalies exceeded their expected goals—Jarry by 3.22, A. Nedeljkovic by 1.82—but Jarry's surplus was decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 18
PIT
3
SJS
0

Penguins shut out the Sharks, 3-0

Chances 3.8 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
3.82
SJS
3.22
54% of the chances46%

The board read PIT 3, SJS 0. The chances read PIT 3.8, SJS 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
−0.8
goals above expected
PIT3.82 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS3.22 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks left 3.2 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. P2 07:35PITS. Crosby1–0
  2. P3 07:02PITA. Mantha2–0
  3. P3 19:38PITE. MalkinEN3–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
38 shots
3
Final
81 shots
SJS
43 shots
0
PIT attackSJS attack
PIT SJS Goal
38
shots · 3 in
43
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITSJS
1 / 4
1.16 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.18 xG
2 / 16
2.17 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.34 xG
0 / 33
0.49 xG
Low
0 / 47
0.70 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
T. Jarry
+3.2
PIT · 31/31
A
A. Nedeljkovic
+1.8
SJS · 24/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins shut out the Sharks, 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 18–11no goals
    2ndshots 5–11
    1. 07:35PITS. Crosby(K. Letang, R. Rakell)1–0
    3rdshots 4–9
    1. 07:02PITA. Mantha(J. Brazeau, E. Malkin)2–0
    2. 19:38PITE. Malkinempty net(S. Crosby, E. Karlsson)3–0

    score reads PIT–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.82
    PIT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.057
    PIT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    45.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.82Expected goals3.22
    PIT 54% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal31
    4High-danger chances5
    53All attempts (Corsi)64
    Adjusted for score: PIT 42% · SJS 58%
    Faceoffs · SJS won69%off58%neu40%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PIT1 / 4 · 1.16 xG
    SJS0 / 5 · 1.18 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PIT2 / 16 · 2.17 xG
    SJS0 / 12 · 1.34 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PIT0 / 33 · 0.49 xG
    SJS0 / 47 · 0.70 xG

    SJS went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.34 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PIT
    3 G · 3.82 xG · -0.8
    SJS
    0 G · 3.22 xG · -3.2
    012345

    PIT finished -0.8 against expected, SJS -3.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PIT
    WRIST2/22
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN1/4
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/15
    SJS
    WRIST0/31
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/4
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/21
    PIT
    SJS
    Off the rush
    2 G on 24
    2.18 xG
    0 G on 24
    2.12 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.87 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.76 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 2-for-22, SJS 0-for-31. 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
    T. Jarry
    PIT · 31/31 · 1.000
    +3.2
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium0/121.3+1.3
    Low0/470.7+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. Nedeljkovic
    SJS · 24/26 · .923
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/41.2+0.2
    Medium2/162.2+0.2
    Low0/330.5+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

    81 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PIT
    38 shots
    3
    Final
    81 shots
    SJS
    43 shots
    0
    PIT attackSJS attack
    PIT SJS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, SJS 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
    S. Crosby
    #87 · C · PIT
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:04 on ice · +2
    E. Malkin
    #71 · C · PIT
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:31 on ice · +2
    K. Letang
    #58 · D · PIT
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:50 on ice · +1
    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

    Model draft
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:08 AMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

    The model projects a PIT 3.3 - 3.2 SJS game with the Penguins at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Keys to the game

    • Filip Hallander drives the Penguins offense. Filip Hallander: 0G 3A, 1.28 xG/60.
    • Pavol Regenda drives the Sharks offense. Pavol Regenda: 5G 1A, 1.10 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.
    • Shutdown Assignment: Sharks. Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Hallander (0G, 1.28 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

    Season 5v5 Numbers

    MetricPITSJS
    xG%50.8%46.5%
    Corsi%50.2%47.0%
    PDO1.0120.998

    Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

    Where the Edges Live

    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 50.8% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
    • The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.2% — expect territorial tilt.

    Players to Watch

    PIT

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

    SJS

    • Pavol Regenda — 1.10 xG/60, 5G 1A, 2 HD goals, 16.1% shooting
    • Igor Chernyshov — 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting

    Key Matchups

    PIT

    • Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Hallander (0G, 1.28 xG/60, 0 HD goals)
    • Watch Rickard Rakell (13G, 12.1% shooting)

    SJS

    • Key matchup: Neutralize Pavol Regenda (5G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
    • Watch Igor Chernyshov (6G, 15.0% shooting)

    Tactical Notes

    • PIT: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
    • PIT defensive weak link: Caleb Jones
    • SJS: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
    • SJS defensive weak link: Igor Chernyshov

    Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 52%
    52%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    PIT50SJS

    PIT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 3.3–3.2 SJS; 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 →SJS
    50.8%46.5%
    50.2%47.0%
    3.312.87
    3.203.30
    3.543.04
    3.153.54
    1.0120.998

    PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.998) 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
    SJS
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    SJS 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.

    TACTICALSJS

    Shutdown Assignment: Sharks

    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 Pavol Regenda (5G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Pavol Regenda (5G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    STRENGTHSJS

    Pavol Regenda drives the Sharks offense

    Pavol Regenda: 5G 1A, 1.10 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.

    Where the edges live
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 50.8% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
    • The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.2% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 50.8% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
    • The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.2% — expect territorial tilt.
    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
    SJS
    Pavol Regenda5G 1A
    1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
    Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page