Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · DET at BUF

Sabres hold off the Red Wings

FinalWed, Oct 22

DETDetroit Red Wings2 BUFBuffalo Sabres4

The verdict · earned

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

DET 2 · BUF 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:40 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

The Sabres won 4-2, but expected goals (4.92–4.20) showed a competitive game masked by the scoreline. Buffalo's advantage was real but thin—less than a goal's worth of quality-adjusted chances.

Goaltending supplied the margin. C. Ellis (BUF) posted a 0.935 save percentage, preventing 2.2 more goals than an average goalie would have from Detroit's shot volume. J. Gibson (DET) also overperformed by 0.92 saves, but Ellis's edge was the determinant.

Shot attempts split evenly (31 each), but Buffalo owned the high-danger edge (8 chances to 7). The Sabres showed clinical transition finishing: four goals on 32 rush attempts. Detroit crashed the net effectively, generating five rebound looks and burying zero. The Red Wings' output wasn't subpar—4.20 expected goals reflects legitimate volume—but they fell 2.2 goals short against Ellis's ceiling-level goaltending.

Buffalo's own 0.92-goal underperformance underscores the margins at play: the Sabres had to operate almost flawlessly while Detroit generated real chances and simply squandered them. Two goals felt dominant because Ellis's performance made a one-goal underlying advantage decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 22

DET

BUF

Sabres hold off the Red Wings

Chances 4.2 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

DET

4.20

BUF

4.92

46% of the chances54%

The board read DET 2, BUF 4. The chances read DET 4.2, BUF 4.9.

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

Luck check

BUF

−0.9

goals above expected

BUF4.92 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

DET4.20 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Red Wings left 2.2 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 03:00DETJ. Compher1–0
P2 11:37BUFJ. Zucker1–1
P2 16:28BUFT. Kozak1–2
P2 18:20DETE. Finnie2–2
P3 04:15BUFJ. QuinnPP2–3
P3 08:10BUFA. Tuch2–4

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

Where the shots came from

DET

51 shots

Final

105 shots

BUF

54 shots

DET BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DETBUF

1 / 7

1.43 xG

High danger

2 / 8

2.55 xG

1 / 16

2.00 xG

Medium

2 / 14

1.54 xG

0 / 50

0.77 xG

Low

0 / 48

0.83 xG

The Sabres buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

C. Ellis

+2.2

BUF · 29/31

B+

J. Gibson

+0.9

DET · 27/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres hold off the Red Wings

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 5–11no goals

2ndshots 11–13

03:00DETJ. Compher(A. Johansson, J. Berggren)1–0
11:37BUFJ. Zucker(J. Quinn, C. Timmins)1–1
16:28BUFT. Kozak(J. Quinn, M. Samuelsson)1–2
18:20DETE. Finnie(D. Larkin, L. Raymond)2–2

3rdshots 15–7

04:15BUFJ. Quinnpower play(R. McLeod, B. Byram)2–3
08:10BUFA. Tuch(J. Doan, R. McLeod)2–4

score reads DET–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.92

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.9

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.030

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.0%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.20Expected goals4.92

BUF 54% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal31

7High-danger chances8

73All attempts (Corsi)70

Adjusted for score: DET 52% · BUF 48%

Faceoffs · BUF won48%off37%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DET1 / 7 · 1.43 xG

BUF2 / 8 · 2.55 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DET1 / 16 · 2.00 xG

BUF2 / 14 · 1.54 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DET0 / 50 · 0.77 xG

BUF0 / 48 · 0.83 xG

DET went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 2.00 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DET

2 G · 4.20 xG · -2.2

BUF

4 G · 4.92 xG · -0.9

0123456

DET finished -2.2 against expected, BUF -0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DET

WRIST1/27

SLAP0/6

SNAP0/5

TIP IN1/6

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/22

BUF

WRIST2/29

SLAP1/13

SNAP0/5

TIP IN1/3

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/16

DET

BUF

Off the rush

1 G on 28

2.38 xG

4 G on 32

3.10 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

0.94 xG

0 G on 1

0.17 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 1-for-27, BUF 2-for-29. BUF 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

J. Gibson

DET · 27/31 · .871

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/82.5+0.6

Medium2/141.5-0.5

Low0/480.8+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

C. Ellis

BUF · 29/31 · .935

+2.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.4+0.4

Medium1/162.0+1.0

Low0/500.8+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

105 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DET

51 shots

Final

105 shots

BUF

54 shots

DET BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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. Quinn

#22 · R · BUF

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 11:40 on ice · +2

R. McLeod

#71 · C · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:57 on ice

C. Timmins

#21 · D · BUF

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:39 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Oct 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:37 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 2.5–2.6 game with Buffalo at 53% win probability — a genuine coin flip.

Detroit's recent resume looks stronger: 8-2-0 in their last ten. But their 0.985 PDO reveals the truth. They're due for regression, not riding a bona fide hot streak. Buffalo's −6 goal differential over the same stretch is worse. They're cooling off and exhausting their variance cushion. Their 1.020 PDO will correct downward.

The underlying metrics show how thin this matchup actually sits. Detroit's 49.0% expected goals share and 49.0% Corsi% are nearly indistinguishable from Buffalo's 50.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%. There's no structural advantage — only recent results creating perception.

Buffalo's top line is the matchup fulcrum. Jason Zucker is generating at 1.07 xG/60 and has 14 goals with 6 in high-danger situations — that's elite conversion. Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, 2 HD goals) mirrors that volume. Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat (0.88 xG/60, 17 goals, 9.0% shooting) and Marco Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7 goals). Kasper's 6.1% shooting rate is the vulnerability — he's generating chances but finishing below expected outcomes, suggesting his line is due for positive variance.

Neither team converts secondary offense. Both sit at 0% on hard-chance and rebound-goal rates; this game won't turn on bench depth or scrappy finishes. That sharpens focus on the weak links: Axel Sandin-Pellikka for Detroit, Jack Quinn for Buffalo. In a matchup this close, whichever team manages their defensive liability better gets the edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 53%

53%

BUF

Model favorite

47%

53%

DET50BUF

BUF by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.5–2.6 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

DET← edge

edge →BUF

49.0%50.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.382.55

2.502.55

1.732.35

2.071.90

0.9851.020

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 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

DET

8-2-0

+10 GD · 3d rest

BUF

3-6-1

-6 GD · 2d rest

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

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

Things to watch

The Red Wings are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
The Sabres are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

3 days rest.889 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

2 days rest.903 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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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