Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
← Sat, Oct 25 · the slate
Breakdown · CBJ at PIT

Blue Jackets edge the Penguins in a shootout

Final / OTSat, Oct 25
CBJColumbus Blue Jackets5PITPittsburgh Penguins4
The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 5 · PIT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:27 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

Expected goals called this nearly even—4.76 for Columbus, 4.33 for Pittsburgh—yet the Blue Jackets won 5-4 in a shootout, a margin suggesting variance in a tight contest decided by Kirill Marchenko's wrist shot from the slot.

The difference was in high-danger execution. Pittsburgh managed 0 goals on 5 chances—a statistical rarity—when A. Silovs stopped 37 of 41 shots (0.902 SV%, +0.76 vs. expected), playing well enough to steal the game. E. Merzlikins answered with 27 saves and a perfect record on five high-danger chances, proving just enough to hold on.

Pittsburgh's power play was dominant: 2 goals on 20 shots (2.39 xG). The Penguins scored 3 goals on 29 rush chances and added 2 more from low-danger spots—variance that opposing goalies live with. Columbus managed 2 rush goals on 36 chances and 1 rebound goal on 5 tries, winning through steadiness rather than dominance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Oct 25
CBJ
5
PIT
4

Blue Jackets edge the Penguins in a shootout

Chances 4.8 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
4.76
PIT
4.33
52% of the chances48%

The board read CBJ 5, PIT 4. The chances read CBJ 4.8, PIT 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
+0.2
goals above expected
CBJ4.76 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT4.33 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:59PITR. Shea0–1
  2. P1 15:44CBJC. Coyle1–1
  3. P1 18:01PITA. Mantha1–2
  4. P2 17:39CBJD. Voronkov2–2
  5. P3 01:55CBJE. Chinakhov3–2
  6. P3 04:54CBJD. Voronkov4–2
  7. P3 14:54PITK. LetangPP4–3
+6 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
62 shots
7
Final
110 shots
PIT
48 shots
6
CBJ attackPIT attack
CBJ PIT Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

62
shots · 7 in
48
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJPIT
1 / 6
1.70 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.49 xG
3 / 23
2.25 xG
Medium
2 / 19
2.19 xG
0 / 47
0.81 xG
Low
2 / 39
0.65 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Silovs
+0.8
PIT · 37/41
B
E. Merzlikins
+0.3
CBJ · 27/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets edge the Penguins in a shootout

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 16–7
  1. 00:59PITR. Shea(A. Mantha, P. Wotherspoon)0–1
  2. 15:44CBJC. Coyle(D. Fabbro, C. Sillinger)1–1
  3. 18:01PITA. Mantha(E. Malkin, J. Brazeau)1–2
2ndshots 9–8
  1. 17:39CBJD. Voronkov(K. Johnson)2–2
3rdshots 13–15
  1. 01:55CBJE. Chinakhov(Z. Aston-Reese, I. Lundeström)3–2
  2. 04:54CBJD. Voronkov(S. Monahan, K. Marchenko)4–2
  3. 14:54PITK. Letangpower play(T. Novak, A. Silovs)4–3
  4. 16:54PITB. Rustpower play(E. Malkin, E. Karlsson)4–4
OTshots 3–1no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CBJK. Johnsonpower play4–4
    2. 00:00PITB. Rustpower play4–4
    3. 00:00CBJA. Fantillipower play4–4
    4. 00:00PITS. Crosbypower play4–4
    5. 00:00CBJK. Marchenkopower play4–4

    score reads CBJ–PIT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.76
    CBJ chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    0.989
    CBJ puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    54.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.76Expected goals4.33
    CBJ 52% of the chance quality
    41Shots on goal31
    6High-danger chances5
    76All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: CBJ 55% · PIT 45%
    Faceoffs · PIT won50%off47%neu63%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CBJ1 / 6 · 1.70 xG
    PIT0 / 5 · 1.49 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CBJ3 / 23 · 2.25 xG
    PIT2 / 19 · 2.19 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CBJ0 / 47 · 0.81 xG
    PIT2 / 39 · 0.65 xG

    PIT went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.49 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CBJ
    5 G · 4.76 xG · +0.2
    PIT
    4 G · 4.33 xG · -0.3
    0123456

    CBJ finished +0.2 against expected, PIT -0.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CBJ
    WRIST1/45
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND1/4
    TIP IN0/3
    SNAP1/3
    DEFLECTED1/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/17
    PIT
    WRIST1/29
    SLAP2/8
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP1/1
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/18
    CBJ
    PIT
    Off the rush
    2 G on 36
    3.04 xG
    3 G on 29
    2.65 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    1.12 xG
    0 G on 6
    1.34 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-45, PIT 1-for-29. PIT 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
    E. Merzlikins
    CBJ · 27/31 · .871
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.5+1.5
    Medium2/192.2+0.2
    Low2/390.7-1.4

    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. Silovs
    PIT · 37/41 · .902
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.7+0.7
    Medium3/232.3-0.8
    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

    110 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CBJ
    62 shots
    7
    Final
    110 shots
    PIT
    48 shots
    6
    CBJ attackPIT attack
    CBJ PIT Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ left, PIT 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
    E. Malkin
    #71 · C · PIT
    0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 21:13 on ice · +1
    D. Voronkov
    #10 · L · CBJ
    2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 17:13 on ice · +2
    A. Mantha
    #39 · R · PIT
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 14:35 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Oct 25
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:05 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 2.6–2.7 goal game favoring Pittsburgh at 51% win probability—essentially a coin flip.

    Pittsburgh's 8–2–0 finish over their last ten games catches the eye. Columbus sits at minus-6 goal differential in that span, a signal of recent struggle. But look deeper and the narrative flattens. At 5v5, the teams are nearly indistinguishable: Columbus leads expected goals 52.0% to 51.0%, a rounding error. Corsi is likewise tight—51.0% for Columbus, 50.0% for Pittsburgh. Both teams are running elevated PDO figures (1.003 and 1.012, respectively), meaning both are due for regression and neither has genuine finishing talent separation.

    Goaltending introduces a variable worth monitoring. J. Greaves arrives on the second night of a back-to-back, and Pittsburgh may deploy a backup or a tired starter.

    Columbus's offense centers on Boone Jenner: 0.98 xG per 60, 11 goals, 21 assists, and a 9.6% conversion rate. Mathieu Olivier (0.89 xG/60, 12 goals) shoots at 13.3%, though only one came from high-danger areas. Pittsburgh counters with Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals on 12.1%) and Filip Hallander, whose 1.28 xG/60 led the team before he was recalled from an AHL conditioning stint—and remains likely out.

    The defensive vulnerabilities are parallel. Columbus's Conor Garland is a weak point; Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones mirrors that liability. Both teams score at 0% on high-danger and rebound opportunities, suggesting they depend on elite finishing rather than sustained cycle play.

    The pick'em odds hold because recent form—Pittsburgh's winning streak—fails to overcome structural parity. The Penguins' backup goaltending scenario is the one real variable. Otherwise, expect a tight match decided at the edges.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 51%
    51%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    CBJ50PIT

    PIT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.7 PIT; 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
    CBJ← edge
    edge →PIT
    52.0%51.0%
    51.0%50.0%
    2.632.66
    2.432.55
    2.122.45
    1.982.12
    1.0031.012

    CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CBJ
    3-7-0
    -6 GD · 1d rest
    PIT
    8-2-0
    +12 GD · 2d rest
    1.003
    CBJ PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Things to watch
    • J. Greaves is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Penguins are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
    • The Blue Jackets are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CBJ
    Expected in goal
    J. Greaves
    back-to-back.833 last start
    Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    PIT
    Expected in goal
    T. Jarry
    2 days rest.919 last start
    Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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
    CBJ
    Boone Jenner11G 21A
    0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
    Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
    0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page