Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · WSH at PIT

Penguins run the Capitals off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Nov 6

WSHWashington Capitals3 PITPittsburgh Penguins5

The verdict · earned

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

WSH 3 · PIT 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:46 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 Penguins won 5-3, and the underlying numbers backed it up. Though shot attempts were nearly tied at 31-30, Pittsburgh dominated in efficiency: they controlled 60% of expected goals (4.73–3.11) and owned the high-danger chances 9-4.

The gap in shot quality explains the result. Pittsburgh's 0.071 expected goals per shot compared to Washington's 0.053 reflects a precision edge evident in the xG split and the scoreline.

Pittsburgh's power play was the decisive factor: three goals on twelve power shots for 1.25 expected goals. Connor Dewar's wrist shot from the point capped the unit's onslaught. Off the rush, Pittsburgh scored twice on 31 chances; Washington matched that on just 24 attempts, indicating fewer high-value opportunities generated.

A. Silovs stopped 27 of 30 (0.900 SV%). C. Lindgren: 26/30 (0.867 SV%, +0.73 vs expected), but Pittsburgh's shot quality overwhelmed the defense.

Pittsburgh's high-danger zone efficiency was clinical: 4 goals on 9 chances for a 44% conversion rate — the difference between the teams.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 6

WSH

PIT

Penguins run the Capitals off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.1 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WSH

3.11

PIT

4.73

40% of the chances60%

The board read WSH 3, PIT 5. The chances read WSH 3.1, PIT 4.7.

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

Luck check

PIT

+0.3

goals above expected

PIT4.73 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

WSH3.11 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 02:22PITS. CrosbyPP0–1
P1 11:32PITS. CrosbyPP0–2
P2 02:08PITA. Mantha0–3
P2 09:41WSHD. Strome1–3
P2 14:55WSHR. Sandin2–3
P2 19:55WSHT. Wilson3–3
P3 11:16PITB. RustPP3–4

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

WSH

42 shots

Final

93 shots

PIT

51 shots

WSH PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WSHPIT

1 / 4

0.94 xG

High danger

4 / 9

2.58 xG

1 / 15

1.57 xG

Medium

1 / 11

1.12 xG

1 / 40

0.59 xG

Low

0 / 47

1.03 xG

The Penguins buried 4 of 9 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

C. Lindgren

+0.7

WSH · 26/30

A. Silovs

+0.1

PIT · 27/30

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins run the Capitals off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 7–16

02:22PITS. Crosbypower play(B. Kindel, B. Rust)0–1
11:32PITS. Crosbypower play(B. Rust, E. Karlsson)0–2

2ndshots 15–7

02:08PITA. Mantha(T. Novak, B. Lizotte)0–3
09:41WSHD. Strome(A. Ovechkin)1–3
14:55WSHR. Sandin(D. Strome, A. Ovechkin)2–3
19:55WSHT. Wilson(D. Strome, J. Carlson)3–3

3rdshots 8–8

11:16PITB. Rustpower play(E. Malkin, B. Kindel)3–4
17:56PITC. Dewarempty net(K. Letang)3–5

score reads WSH–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.73

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.024

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

53.2%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.11Expected goals4.73

PIT 60% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal31

4High-danger chances9

59All attempts (Corsi)67

Adjusted for score: WSH 52% · PIT 48%

Faceoffs · PIT won54%off50%neu39%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WSH1 / 4 · 0.94 xG

PIT4 / 9 · 2.58 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WSH1 / 15 · 1.57 xG

PIT1 / 11 · 1.12 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WSH1 / 40 · 0.59 xG

PIT0 / 47 · 1.03 xG

PIT went 4-for-9 from high danger on 2.58 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WSH

3 G · 3.11 xG · -0.1

PIT

5 G · 4.73 xG · +0.3

0123456

WSH finished -0.1 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

WSH

WRIST3/24

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/3

SNAP0/3

OTHER0/17

PIT

WRIST4/34

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND1/4

SNAP0/2

OTHER0/16

WSH

PIT

Off the rush

2 G on 24

1.91 xG

2 G on 31

2.66 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 5

0.79 xG

2 G on 5

0.76 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WSH went 3-for-24, PIT 4-for-34. WSH scored 2 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

C. Lindgren

WSH · 26/30 · .867

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/92.6-1.4

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low0/471.0+1.0

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 · 27/30 · .900

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium1/151.6+0.6

Low1/400.6-0.4

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WSH

42 shots

Final

93 shots

PIT

51 shots

WSH PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WSH 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

D. Strome

#17 · C · WSH

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 23:30 on ice · +2

B. Rust

#17 · R · PIT

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 21:36 on ice · -1

S. Crosby

#87 · C · PIT

2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 22:03 on ice · -2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Nov 6

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:51 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

Models project Pittsburgh at 53% win probability—barely above a true coin flip. MoneyPuck's numbers predict a 2.6 to 2.8 goal spread, suggesting this matchup lacks a clear lean.

Both clubs operate at nearly identical efficiency. Washington posts a 50.0% expected goals share at 5-on-5; Pittsburgh edges ahead at 51.0%. Corsi margins mirror the pattern: Washington 49.0%, Pittsburgh 50.0%. Neither team dominates shot creation. What separates them is luck. Washington's PDO of 1.018 signals unsustainably hot results—goals are converting at an inflated rate relative to expected offense. Pittsburgh's 1.012 sits closer to neutral. Expect regression to narrow any gap.

Pittsburgh holds a rest advantage that could prove decisive. The Penguins arrive on two days off; Washington on five. Fatigue doesn't show up in expected goals, but it compounds over 60 minutes.

For Washington, Alex Ovechkin remains the engine: 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, 19 goals, 17 assists, two high-danger chances. His 13.8% shooting rate is elevated but not impossible—elite finishers sustain marks like this. Anthony Beauvillier (0.89 xG/60, 14 goals, 9 assists, 2 high-danger goals) operates as the secondary threat, though his 10.4% shooting suggests some regression waiting.

Pittsburgh's primary concern is depth. Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 high-danger goals, 12.1% shooting) profiles as a reliable playmaker with legitimate volume, but the team lacks another clear first-line producer. Filip Hallander, who carried the highest expected goal rate at 1.28 per 60, is out for further evaluation after his AHL conditioning assignment.

Both defenses register identical high-danger and rebound-goal prevention rates of 0%, a data point that strains credulity but reflects what the underlying metrics show. Washington's Declan Chisholm and Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones represent positional vulnerabilities worth monitoring.

This game hinges on which team's underlying metrics hold predictive value—or whether variance overwhelms both. Pittsburgh's marginal efficiency edge and rest advantage nudge the needle. Call it slight lean Penguins, though the models refuse to commit further.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 53%

53%

PIT

Model favorite

47%

53%

WSH50PIT

PIT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WSH 2.6–2.8 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

WSH← edge

edge →PIT

50.0%51.0%

49.0%50.0%

2.622.66

2.622.55

2.182.45

1.792.12

1.0181.012

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 1.012) says WSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

WSH

5-4-1

+2 GD · 5d rest

PIT

6-2-2

+11 GD · 2d rest

1.018

WSH PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Capitals have 3 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

WSH

Expected in goal

C. Lindgren

5 days rest.875 last start

Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PIT

Expected in goal

T. Jarry

2 days rest.800 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

WSH

Alex Ovechkin19G 17A

0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh

Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% 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