Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater

Breakdown · CBJ at BUF

Blue Jackets edge the Sabres in overtime

Final / OTTue, Oct 28

CBJColumbus Blue Jackets4 BUFBuffalo Sabres3

The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 4 · BUF 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:40 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

Columbus controlled play decisively—56% of expected goals at 5v5 (4.69–3.72)—but needed overtime to settle it. Miles Wood's tip-in from the doorstep at 02:53 OT gave the Blue Jackets a 4-3 win, and the underlying numbers bore it out. Buffalo generated 3.72 expected goals but scored just 3, a 0.72-goal shortfall that proved decisive.

The Sabres were clinical in the high-danger zone (2 of 5 chances, 40%) but couldn't generate enough volume. Columbus countered with rush dominance, converting 3 of 29 chances—an efficiency that separated the teams. Both goalies overperformed their expected save percentages: J. Greaves made 35 of 38 (0.921 SV%, +0.72 vs expected), and A. Lyon stopped 35 of 39 (0.897 SV%, +0.69 vs expected). Greaves' team just had better finishing when it mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Oct 28

CBJ

BUF

Blue Jackets edge the Sabres in overtime

Chances 4.7 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CBJ

4.69

BUF

3.72

56% of the chances44%

The board read CBJ 4, BUF 3. The chances read CBJ 4.7, BUF 3.7.

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

Luck check

CBJ

−0.7

goals above expected

CBJ4.69 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF3.72 expected · 3 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

P1 06:09CBJE. Chinakhov1–0
P2 11:39BUFJ. Doan1–1
P2 14:12BUFR. McLeod1–2
P2 19:44CBJZ. WerenskiPP2–2
P3 02:40BUFJ. Dunne2–3
P3 13:55CBJM. Wood3–3
OT 02:53CBJM. Wood4–3

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

Where the shots came from

CBJ

56 shots

Final

106 shots

BUF

50 shots

CBJ BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CBJBUF

1 / 7

1.61 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.13 xG

2 / 18

2.29 xG

Medium

0 / 16

1.81 xG

1 / 52

0.78 xG

Low

1 / 45

0.77 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 1 of 7, BUF 2 of 5.

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

In the net

J. Greaves

+0.7

CBJ · 35/38

A. Lyon

+0.7

BUF · 35/39

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets edge the Sabres in overtime

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 14–9

06:09CBJE. Chinakhov1–0

2ndshots 10–12

11:39BUFJ. Doan(A. Tuch, C. Timmins)1–1
14:12BUFR. McLeod(B. Byram, A. Tuch)1–2
19:44CBJZ. Werenskipower play(K. Marchenko, S. Monahan)2–2

3rdshots 13–16

02:40BUFJ. Dunne(B. Malenstyn, M. Samuelsson)2–3
13:55CBJM. Wood(E. Chinakhov, D. Fabbro)3–3

OTshots 2–1

02:53CBJM. Wood(Z. Werenski, I. Lundeström)4–3

score reads CBJ–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.69

CBJ chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.7

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.006

CBJ puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

53.8%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.69Expected goals3.72

CBJ 56% of the chance quality

39Shots on goal38

7High-danger chances5

77All attempts (Corsi)66

Adjusted for score: CBJ 53% · BUF 47%

Faceoffs · BUF won45%off40%neu44%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CBJ1 / 7 · 1.61 xG

BUF2 / 5 · 1.13 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CBJ2 / 18 · 2.29 xG

BUF0 / 16 · 1.81 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CBJ1 / 52 · 0.78 xG

BUF1 / 45 · 0.77 xG

BUF went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.81 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CBJ

4 G · 4.69 xG · -0.7

BUF

3 G · 3.72 xG · -0.7

012345

CBJ finished -0.7 against expected, BUF -0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CBJ

WRIST0/32

SNAP0/7

SLAP1/3

BACKHAND1/7

DEFLECTED0/4

TIP IN2/3

POKE0/0

OTHER0/21

BUF

WRIST2/28

SNAP0/7

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

TIP IN0/2

POKE1/4

OTHER0/16

CBJ

BUF

Off the rush

3 G on 29

2.94 xG

1 G on 32

2.30 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

0.78 xG

2 G on 4

0.82 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 0-for-32, BUF 2-for-28. CBJ 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

J. Greaves

CBJ · 35/38 · .921

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.1-0.9

Medium0/161.8+1.8

Low1/450.8-0.2

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. Lyon

BUF · 35/39 · .897

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.6+0.6

Medium2/182.3+0.3

Low1/520.8-0.2

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

106 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CBJ

56 shots

Final

106 shots

BUF

50 shots

CBJ BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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

Z. Werenski

#8 · D · CBJ

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 27:59 on ice · +1

A. Tuch

#89 · R · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 15:39 on ice

M. Wood

#11 · L · CBJ

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 13:24 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:27 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 Buffalo at 50% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Columbus leads slightly in underlying possession: 52.0% expected-goals share and 51.0% Corsi compared to Buffalo's 50.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi. The gap is marginal—what separates this from a true toss-up is regression risk. Buffalo's 1.020 PDO suggests they're running hot; Columbus sits at 1.003, indicating more sustainability. Expect some correction.

The Sabres' scoring load falls on Jason Zucker and Josh Doan. Zucker has generated 1.07 xG per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 14 assists, though 6 of those goals came from high-danger chances at a 15.1% shooting rate. Doan adds 15 goals and 18 assists on 1.01 xG/60, with 2 HD goals and an 11.5% shooting clip. Both are running at elevated efficiency.

Columbus counters with Boone Jenner, who carries 0.98 xG/60 and has posted 11 goals and 21 assists, including 2 HD goals at 9.6% shooting. Mathieu Olivier complements him with 12 goals and 9 assists on 0.89 xG/60; his 13.3% shooting rate is among the team's highest. Neither Blue Jacket ranks elite in danger scoring, but both maintain consistent offensive generation.

Defensively, both teams share a critical weakness: neither has converted high-danger chances into secondary scoring, with 0% rebound-goal rates. Columbus's Conor Garland and Buffalo's Jack Quinn both represent soft spots in their defensive structures. The team that better capitalizes on its opposition's defensive lapses could break the statistical deadlock.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 50%

50%

BUF

Model favorite

50%

CBJ50BUF

BUF by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.6 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

CBJ← edge

edge →BUF

52.0%50.0%

51.0%49.0%

2.632.55

2.432.55

2.122.35

1.981.90

1.0031.020

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 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

CBJ

4-6-0

-2 GD · 3d rest

BUF

4-4-2

-1 GD · 3d rest

1.003

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

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CBJ

Expected in goal

E. Merzlikins

3 days rest.871 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF

Expected in goal

U. Luukkonen

3 days rest.826 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

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

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