Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
← Sat, Nov 8 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at NJD

Devils edge the Penguins in a shootout

Final / OTSat, Nov 8
PITPittsburgh Penguins1NJDNew Jersey Devils2
The verdict · stolen

The Devils stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.32–2.46 and won anyway.

PIT 1 · NJD 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:14 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 Devils stole this one. Pittsburgh controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5—a dominant performance that earns wins on most nights. The Penguins still lost 2-1 in a shootout.

The case for Pittsburgh was strong. They held 34 shot attempts to New Jersey's 24, taking the shooting battle decisively. High-danger chances went 5-2. Expected goals finished 3.32–2.46, another commanding edge. By the underlying metrics, this was a Pittsburgh win.

The Devils' goaltending had other plans. Jake Allen stopped 33 of 34 shots for a 0.971 save percentage, saving 2.32 goals above expected against the run of play. More telling: Allen faced 5 high-danger chances and stopped all 5. The Penguins' precision broke down when it mattered—they went 0 for 5 on their best chances and underperformed their expected goals by 2.32, a chasm between prep and execution.

Alexei Silovs kept Pittsburgh breathing. He posted 23 saves on 24 shots for a 0.958 save percentage, crediting himself 1.46 goals above expected. One goaltender rose to the moment; the other's team buried the chances.

The tipping point came in the shootout. Jesper Bratt's wrist shot from the doorstep ended it—a moment New Jersey's body of play didn't earn, but their goaltending did.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 8
PIT
1
NJD
2

Devils edge the Penguins in a shootout

Chances 3.3 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
3.32
NJD
2.46
57% of the chances43%

The board read PIT 1, NJD 2. The chances read PIT 3.3, NJD 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
−0.5
goals above expected
NJD2.46 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT3.32 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 2.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 19:12NJDA. Gritsyuk0–1
  2. P2 12:33PITR. Graves1–1
  3. SO 00:00NJDP. CotterPP1–1
  4. SO 00:00NJDJ. BrattPP1–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
48 shots
1
Final
86 shots
NJD
38 shots
3
PIT attackNJD attack
PIT NJD Goal

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

48
shots · 1 in
38
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITNJD
0 / 5
1.22 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.40 xG
0 / 13
1.30 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.50 xG
1 / 51
0.80 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.55 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Allen
+2.3
NJD · 33/34
B+
A. Silovs
+1.5
PIT · 23/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Devils 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 12–6
  1. 19:12NJDA. Gritsyuk0–1
2ndshots 11–9
  1. 12:33PITR. Graves(B. Rust, S. Crosby)1–1
3rdshots 7–8no goals
    OTshots 4–1no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00NJDP. Cotterpower play1–1
      2. 00:00NJDJ. Brattpower play1–1

      score reads PIT–NJD

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.46
      NJD chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.5
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.006
      NJD puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      42.0%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.32Expected goals2.46
      PIT 57% of the chance quality
      34Shots on goal24
      5High-danger chances2
      69All attempts (Corsi)50
      Adjusted for score: PIT 59% · NJD 41%
      Faceoffs · NJD won50%off69%neu57%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      PIT0 / 5 · 1.22 xG
      NJD1 / 2 · 0.40 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      PIT0 / 13 · 1.30 xG
      NJD0 / 14 · 1.50 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      PIT1 / 51 · 0.80 xG
      NJD0 / 34 · 0.55 xG

      NJD went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.50 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      PIT
      1 G · 3.32 xG · -2.3
      NJD
      2 G · 2.46 xG · -0.5
      01234

      PIT finished -2.3 against expected, NJD -0.5.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      PIT
      WRIST0/19
      SNAP0/13
      SLAP1/6
      BACKHAND0/5
      TIP IN0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/23
      NJD
      WRIST0/12
      SNAP1/13
      SLAP0/5
      BACKHAND0/4
      TIP IN0/2
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/14
      PIT
      NJD
      Off the rush
      0 G on 27
      2.20 xG
      1 G on 30
      2.29 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 2
      0.27 xG
      0 G on 0
      0.00 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 0-for-19, NJD 0-for-12.

      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
      A. Silovs
      PIT · 23/24 · .958
      +1.5
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/20.4-0.6
      Medium0/141.5+1.5
      Low0/340.6+0.6

      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

      J. Allen
      NJD · 33/34 · .971
      +2.3
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/51.2+1.2
      Medium0/131.3+1.3
      Low1/510.8-0.2

      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

      86 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      PIT
      48 shots
      1
      Final
      86 shots
      NJD
      38 shots
      3
      PIT attackNJD attack
      PIT NJD 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 — PIT left, NJD 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
      B. Rust
      #17 · R · PIT
      0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:13 on ice · +1
      S. Crosby
      #87 · C · PIT
      0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:55 on ice · +1
      R. Graves
      #27 · D · PIT
      1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 17:09 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Nov 8
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:00 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 New Jersey at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

      Season-long 5v5 metrics show why. Pittsburgh's expected goals share sits at 51.0%, compared to New Jersey's 50.0%—a negligible gap. Corsi tilts the other way, 50.0% for the Penguins and 51.0% for the Devils. Possession is a wash.

      The one visible variable is the Devils' PDO at 0.971. They're running cold, which means their goal rate has lagged their underlying shot quality. Positive regression is overdue.

      Both goaltenders start this matchup fatigued. J. Markstrom and A. Silovs are each on a back-to-back. Backup appearances or a tired starter are live possibilities in either crease.

      Rickard Rakell carries the Penguins' shot-generation load. He's averaging 1.01 xG per 60 minutes with 13 goals and a 12.1% shooting rate, suggesting his scoring has outpaced expected output. He's someone New Jersey will need to account for. Note that Filip Hallander, a 1.28 xG/60 contributor, is likely out with a conditioning evaluation and won't factor here.

      Jack Hughes and Timo Meier drive New Jersey's attack. Hughes has 18 goals and 17 assists with an 0.88 xG per 60, indicating he's outscored his chances—a sign of either finishing skill or unsustainable luck, depending on your read. Meier sits at 1.08 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists, more aligned with his expected impact.

      Both teams' finishing patterns reveal structural weakness. Pittsburgh's high-danger goal rate and rebound goal rate both sit at 0%. The same holds for New Jersey. Neither side is generating messy, second-chance looks at a clip that would show up in these splits—a concern if either team needs a late goal. Caleb Jones anchors Pittsburgh's defensive weakness; Johnathan Kovacevic does the same for New Jersey.

      This is a game where meta-level execution will separate the teams more than raw talent. Both sides can score, both sides can defend at roughly the same rate, and both are dealing with goaltending fatigue. The Devils' PDO gives them a credible angle for positive variance, but that's not a prediction—that's an observation about available tail risk. Pittsburgh's depth at forward, led by Rakell's volume, keeps them in the mix.

      The 51% projection for New Jersey reflects all this. It's not conviction; it's equilibrium. Lean toward the team with the warmer puck luck, but prepare for a coin flip.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      NJD 51%
      51%
      NJD
      Model favorite
      49%
      51%
      PIT50NJD

      NJD by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.6–2.6 NJD; 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
      PIT← edge
      edge →NJD
      51.0%50.0%
      50.0%51.0%
      2.662.45
      2.552.50
      2.451.66
      2.122.23
      1.0120.971

      PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.971) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      PIT
      6-2-2
      +11 GD · 1d rest
      NJD
      7-3-0
      +5 GD · 1d rest
      1.012
      PIT PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.971
      NJD PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Regression watch
      • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • J. Markstrom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • A. Silovs is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      PIT
      Expected in goal
      A. Silovs
      back-to-back.900 last start
      Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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.

      NJD
      Expected in goal
      J. Markstrom
      back-to-back.842 last start
      Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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.

      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
      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
      NJD
      Timo Meier13G 15A
      1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
      Jack Hughes18G 17A
      0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page