Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
Breakdown · BUF at MTL

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Sabres

The verdict · stolen

The Canadiens stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 5.52–4.50 and won anyway.

BUF 2 · MTL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:28 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

Montreal won 4-2 despite surrendering the expected-goals battle. Buffalo generated 5.52 xG to the Canadiens' 4.50—a 55–45 split in Buffalo's favor. The difference: Montreal converted their high-danger chances, Buffalo didn't, and J. Dobes made the saves that mattered.

The Canadiens converted their looks. Montreal buried three of their seven high-danger chances (43% efficiency). Buffalo generated even more quality: 10 HD chances to Montreal's 7, but scored zero. That disparity—three goals from dangerous situations versus none—explained the scoreline more than overall xG.

Goaltending amplified the gap. Dobes stopped 30 of 32 shots (0.938 SV%) and saved 3.52 goals above expected. A. Lyon (BUF) was also strong—28 saves in 31 shots (0.903 SV%), saving 1.50 goals above expected—but faced tougher circumstances in tight contests.

Montreal's rush game broke the stalemate. The Canadiens scored four goals on 26 rush attempts, a conversion rate that reflected decision-making off the transition. Buffalo absorbed the imbalance without answer.

The script favored Montreal because they married opportunity to discipline. N. Suzuki's two assists and A. Newhook's two assists paced the attack. R. Dahlin recorded one assist for Buffalo despite 26:52 on ice.

Jake Evans's snap shot from the top of the circles at 19:29 of the third period—the turning point—underscored Montreal's ability to finish when it mattered most.

Buffalo controlled the run of play by every analytical measure, then left empty. Montreal's goaltending and clinical finishing rendered their territorial edge irrelevant.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 20
BUF
2
MTL
4

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Sabres

Chances 5.5 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sabres deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
5.52
MTL
4.50
55% of the chances45%

The board read BUF 2, MTL 4. The chances read BUF 5.5, MTL 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
−0.5
goals above expected
MTL4.50 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
BUF5.52 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres left 3.5 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. P1 08:29MTLO. Kapanen0–1
  2. P2 06:51BUFJ. Kulich1–1
  3. P3 02:57MTLJ. Slafkovský1–2
  4. P3 11:38MTLL. Hutson1–3
  5. P3 12:30BUFT. Kozak2–3
  6. P3 19:29MTLJ. EvansEN2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
51 shots
2
Final
98 shots
MTL
47 shots
4
BUF attackMTL attack
BUF MTL Goal
51
shots · 2 in
47
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFMTL
1 / 10
2.66 xG
High danger
3 / 7
2.35 xG
1 / 16
2.09 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.51 xG
0 / 47
0.78 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.64 xG

The Canadiens buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Dobes
+3.5
MTL · 30/32
A
A. Lyon
+1.5
BUF · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Sabres

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 6–14
  1. 08:29MTLO. Kapanen(I. Demidov, A. Newhook)0–1
2ndshots 11–4
  1. 06:51BUFJ. Kulich(Z. Benson)1–1
3rdshots 15–14
  1. 02:57MTLJ. Slafkovský(N. Dobson, N. Suzuki)1–2
  2. 11:38MTLL. Hutson(A. Newhook)1–3
  3. 12:30BUFT. Kozak(J. Quinn, R. Dahlin)2–3
  4. 19:29MTLJ. Evansempty net(N. Suzuki)2–4

score reads BUF–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.50
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.5
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.040
MTL 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

5.52Expected goals4.50
BUF 55% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal32
10High-danger chances7
73All attempts (Corsi)59
Adjusted for score: BUF 58% · MTL 42%
Faceoffs · MTL won56%off43%neu65%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF1 / 10 · 2.66 xG
MTL3 / 7 · 2.35 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF1 / 16 · 2.09 xG
MTL1 / 13 · 1.51 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF0 / 47 · 0.78 xG
MTL0 / 39 · 0.64 xG

BUF went 1-for-10 from high danger on 2.66 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
2 G · 5.52 xG · -3.5
MTL
4 G · 4.50 xG · -0.5
0123456

BUF finished -3.5 against expected, MTL -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
SNAP1/27
BACKHAND1/10
SLAP0/9
WRIST0/1
TIP IN0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/22
MTL
SNAP2/27
BACKHAND1/8
SLAP0/3
WRIST1/6
TIP IN0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/12
BUF
MTL
Off the rush
1 G on 31
3.40 xG
4 G on 26
2.64 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 9
1.20 xG
0 G on 5
0.83 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-27, MTL 2-for-27. MTL scored 4 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
A. Lyon
BUF · 28/31 · .903
+1.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/72.4-0.7
Medium1/131.5+0.5
Low0/390.6+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

J. Dobes
MTL · 30/32 · .938
+3.5
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/102.7+1.7
Medium1/162.1+1.1
Low0/470.8+0.8

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

98 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BUF
51 shots
2
Final
98 shots
MTL
47 shots
4
BUF attackMTL attack
BUF MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, MTL 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
N. Suzuki
#14 · C · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:37 on ice · +2
A. Newhook
#15 · C · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:44 on ice · +1
R. Dahlin
#26 · D · BUF
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 26:52 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Oct 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:12 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

The model projects a 2.6–2.6 game with Montreal at 50% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Buffalo and Montreal are genuinely matched. Buffalo holds a 50.0% expected goals share to Montreal's 48.0%, and both sit at 49.0% in Corsi—meaning they control play equally. Both teams' PDOs—Buffalo 1.020, Montreal 1.018—reveal the real story: each has run hot on puck luck. Regression from either team could decide the game.

The matchup you watch is Jason Zucker versus Cole Caufield. Zucker generates 1.07 expected goals per 60 minutes and has scored 14 goals with 14 assists on 15.1% shooting, with 6 of those goals from high-danger areas. Caufield, by contrast, has 33 goals and 16 assists on 0.97 xG/60 and a 20.0% shooting rate, but just 1 high-danger goal. Zucker is a hard-luck threat creating from dangerous areas; Caufield is riding volume and accuracy from secondary chances. That asymmetry—Zucker's 6 HD goals to Caufield's 1—defines their scoring profiles.

Josh Doan's 15 goals and 18 assists on 11.5% shooting (1.01 xG/60) adds secondary firepower for Buffalo. Montreal counters with Brendan Gallagher: 5 goals and 13 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and 4.6% shooting. Both carry regression risk from their current heat.

The weak points matter in a 50/50 game. Jack Quinn is Buffalo's defensive liability; Mike Matheson is Montreal's. Whichever team gets exposed there likely loses.

Players to Watch

Buffalo: Jason Zucker (1.07 xG/60, 14G 14A, 6 HD goals, 15.1% shooting), Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 15G 18A, 2 HD goals, 11.5% shooting)

Montreal: Cole Caufield (0.97 xG/60, 33G 16A, 1 HD goal, 20.0% shooting), Brendan Gallagher (0.89 xG/60, 5G 13A, 1 HD goal, 4.6% shooting)

The models are right: this is a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MTL 50%
50%
MTL
Model favorite
50%
50%
BUF50MTL

MTL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.6–2.6 MTL; 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
BUF← edge
edge →MTL
50.0%48.0%
49.0%49.0%
2.552.41
2.552.62
2.352.24
1.901.96
1.0201.018

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.018) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
BUF
4-5-1
-3 GD · 2d rest
MTL
6-4-0
+3 GD · 2d rest
1.020
BUF PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • MTL PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • BUF PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • MTL PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
BUF
Expected in goal
A. Lyon
2 days rest1.000 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL
Expected in goal
S. Montembeault
2 days rest.818 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Brendan Gallagher5G 13A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next