Backcheck
Recap · CBJ at BUF

Blue Jackets edge the Sabres in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 1:40 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CBJ
Columbus Blue Jackets
4
Home
BUF
Buffalo Sabres
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.69Expected goals3.72
56% share for the better side
39Shot attempts (SOG)38
7High-danger chances5
77Corsi (all attempts)66
Score-adjusted: 53% / 47%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. GreavesCBJ
+0.7
A. LyonBUF
+0.7

CBJ finished -0.7 against expected, BUF -0.7 — J. Greaves (CBJ) saved 0.7 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 27:59 TOI · +1
A. Tuch
#89 · R · BUF
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 15:39 TOI
M. Wood
#11 · L · CBJ
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 13:24 TOI · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • BUF was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/5 on HD chances (40%).
  • CBJ was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 29 rush chances.
  • BUF created 4 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CBJ created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CBJ at BUF · 6:45 PM ET

Blue Jackets at Sabres: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 1:27 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
BUF
Model favorite
50%
50%
CBJ50BUF

BUF by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.62.6 BUF; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

CBJ← edge
edge →BUF
52.0%5v5 xG%50.0%
51.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.63xGF / 602.55
2.43xGA / 602.55
2.12Goals for / gm2.35
1.98Goals against / gm1.90
1.003PDO — luck, not skill1.020

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 1.020) says BUF has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters