Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · STL at PIT

Penguins pull away from the Blues

FinalMon, Oct 27

STLSt. Louis Blues3 PITPittsburgh Penguins6

The verdict · coin flip

The Penguins won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

STL 3 · PIT 6

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:39 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

Pittsburgh's 6-3 victory overstated their control—expected goals split 3.49–3.42, a gap smaller than one goal in favor of the Penguins. They overperformed their xG by 2.51 goals, meaning the scoreboard magnified what was closer underneath.

The high-danger metrics show why. Pittsburgh generated 5 high-danger chances to St. Louis's 2, a 2.5-to-1 edge in the most dangerous scoring areas. That translated to execution: Pittsburgh converted 2 of 5 high-danger chances (40%), clinical finishing when it mattered.

Quality over volume defined the difference. Pittsburgh's shot quality (0.074 xG per attempt) exceeded St. Louis's (0.052), meaning each Penguins shot carried more threat. Off the rush, Pittsburgh scored 5 goals on 21 chances; St. Louis managed 3 on 29, more attempts wasted.

Evgeni Malkin's wrist shot from the top of the circles in the third period (16:59) crystallized Pittsburgh's control—a high-danger look that captured their edge.

The goaltending split widened the gap. T. Jarry stopped 25 of 28 shots (0.893 SV%). J. Hofer faced 25 and saved 20 (0.800 SV%), underperforming his expected save percentage by 1.51 goals. Pittsburgh's edge in high-danger execution, rush efficiency, and goaltending transformed a close underlying game into a 6-3 final.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 27

STL

PIT

Penguins pull away from the Blues

Chances 3.4 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Penguins took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

3.42

PIT

3.49

49% of the chances51%

The board read STL 3, PIT 6. The chances read STL 3.4, PIT 3.5.

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

Luck check

PIT

+2.5

goals above expected

PIT3.49 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

STL3.42 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Penguins scored 2.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 00:39PITB. Rust0–1
P1 00:55PITA. Mantha0–2
P1 04:15STLN. Bjugstad1–2
P1 15:43STLJ. Kyrou2–2
P2 06:37PITP. WotherspoonPP2–3
P3 00:42PITB. Rust2–4
P3 04:35STLM. Joseph3–4

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

STL

45 shots

Final

79 shots

PIT

34 shots

STL PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLPIT

0 / 2

0.47 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.67 xG

3 / 21

2.25 xG

Medium

4 / 13

1.48 xG

0 / 43

0.69 xG

Low

0 / 29

0.35 xG

The Penguins buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

T. Jarry

+0.4

PIT · 25/28

J. Hofer

−1.5

STL · 20/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins pull away from the Blues

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 8–10

00:39PITB. Rust(E. Karlsson, F. Hallander)0–1
00:55PITA. Mantha(E. Malkin, J. Brazeau)0–2
04:15STLN. Bjugstad(N. Walker, T. Tucker)1–2
15:43STLJ. Kyrou(B. Schenn, D. Holloway)2–2

2ndshots 10–8

06:37PITP. Wotherspoonpower play(S. Crosby, E. Karlsson)2–3

3rdshots 10–8

00:42PITB. Rust(E. Karlsson, S. Crosby)2–4
04:35STLM. Joseph(N. Bjugstad)3–4
16:39PITS. Crosby(B. Rust)3–5
16:59PITE. Malkinempty net(J. Brazeau)3–6

score reads STL–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.49

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.082

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

41.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.42Expected goals3.49

PIT 51% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal26

2High-danger chances5

66All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: STL 62% · PIT 38%

Faceoffs · PIT won47%off31%neu57%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL0 / 2 · 0.47 xG

PIT2 / 5 · 1.67 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL3 / 21 · 2.25 xG

PIT4 / 13 · 1.48 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL0 / 43 · 0.69 xG

PIT0 / 29 · 0.35 xG

PIT went 4-for-13 from medium danger on 1.48 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

3 G · 3.42 xG · -0.4

PIT

6 G · 3.49 xG · +2.5

01234567

STL finished -0.4 against expected, PIT +2.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

WRIST2/24

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/5

SNAP1/5

BACKHAND0/3

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/21

PIT

WRIST3/23

SLAP0/2

TIP IN1/3

SNAP2/3

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/13

STL

PIT

Off the rush

3 G on 29

2.04 xG

5 G on 21

2.15 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.73 xG

1 G on 3

0.89 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 2-for-24, PIT 3-for-23. PIT scored 5 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. Hofer

STL · 20/25 · .800

-1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.7-0.3

Medium4/131.5-2.5

Low0/290.3+0.3

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

T. Jarry

PIT · 25/28 · .893

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium3/212.3-0.8

Low0/430.7+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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

45 shots

Final

79 shots

PIT

34 shots

STL PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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. Karlsson

#65 · D · PIT

0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 23:52 on ice · +3

B. Rust

#17 · R · PIT

2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +2

S. Crosby

#87 · C · PIT

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:02 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Oct 27

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:24 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 sets Pittsburgh at 54% to win in a 2.4-2.7 goal range—as even as matchups get. The teams split on underlying metrics: Pittsburgh leads 51.0% xG% to St. Louis's 49.0%, and 50.0% Corsi% to 48.0%, but neither has stolen luck (Pittsburgh 1.012 PDO, St. Louis 1.000).

The Blues center on Jimmy Snuggerud. His 0.86 xG/60 translates to 15 goals and 22 assists, two of them high-danger; his 11.9% shooting rate sits slightly above the median. Dylan Holloway provides secondary punch at 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals, 24 assists, and a 10.8% rate.

Pittsburgh's Filip Hallander, recalled from an AHL conditioning loan, is out for further evaluation. That removes their most prolific interior producer—he was generating 1.28 xG/60. Rickard Rakell inherits the burden at 1.01 xG/60: 13 goals, 13 assists, three on high-danger chances at a 12.1% clip.

A shared weakness: both teams have zero high-danger goals and zero rebound goals at 5v5 this season, a statistical floor unlikely to hold. St. Louis's defensive hole is Snuggerud—elite volume, zero value on the other end. Pittsburgh's is Caleb Jones.

The deciding factor: goaltending. The models say this is even, which means the save percentage wins the night.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 54%

54%

PIT

Model favorite

46%

54%

STL50PIT

PIT by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.4–2.7 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

STL← edge

edge →PIT

49.0%51.0%

48.0%50.0%

2.342.66

2.402.55

2.002.45

2.122.12

1.0001.012

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 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

STL

5-4-1

+1 GD · 2d rest

PIT

7-2-1

+9 GD · 2d rest

1.000

STL 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

Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

2 days rest.815 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PIT

Expected in goal

A. Silovs

2 days rest.902 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

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A

0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh

Dylan Holloway13G 24A

0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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