Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater

Breakdown · BUF at COL

Avalanche run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Nov 13

BUFBuffalo Sabres3 COLColorado Avalanche6

The verdict · earned

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

BUF 3 · COL 6

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:53 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

Colorado's 6-3 win was even more dominant than the scoreline suggested. The Avalanche controlled 66% of expected goals (5.60–2.93), a gap that points to overwhelming play underneath the goal differential.

The separation came from efficiency and volume. Colorado generated higher-danger chances at 0.078 xG per shot versus Buffalo's 0.053—a meaningful gap in shot quality. On rush chances, Colorado buried four goals on 38 attempts; Buffalo managed two on 25. When you dominate both quantity and conversion rate, the score follows.

Buffalo's goaltending split underscores the gap. U. Luukkonen was exceptional, stopping 2.09 goals above expected, yet the team still fell by three. A. Lyon's limited work (-1.49 vs expected) completed the collapse. M. Blackwood faced an easier night (18/21 saves) because Colorado's defense suffocated opportunity generation.

The high-danger chance margin (6–4) and shot-attempt ratio (62–38) both reflected the same story: one direction of play. Buffalo generated some pressure through rebounding (3 chances, 1 goal), but never threatened the game's control.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 13

BUF

COL

Avalanche run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.9 – 5.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

2.93

COL

5.60

34% of the chances66%

The board read BUF 3, COL 6. The chances read BUF 2.9, COL 5.6.

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

Luck check

COL

+0.4

goals above expected

COL5.60 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF2.93 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 00:52COLM. Necas0–1
P1 06:10COLA. Lehkonen0–2
P1 07:47BUFB. Byram1–2
P1 09:46COLB. Nelson1–3
P1 13:28BUFJ. Greenway2–3
P2 14:56BUFT. ThompsonPP3–3
P2 16:22COLG. Brindley3–4

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

39 shots

Final

97 shots

COL

58 shots

BUF COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFCOL

1 / 4

0.84 xG

High danger

2 / 6

2.65 xG

2 / 17

1.63 xG

Medium

3 / 17

1.84 xG

0 / 34

0.45 xG

Low

1 / 49

1.11 xG

The Avalanche buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

A. Lyon

+3.6

BUF · 1/3

A+

U. Luukkonen

+2.6

BUF · 27/30

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Sabres 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 6–6

00:52COLM. Necas(C. Makar, D. Toews)0–1
06:10COLA. Lehkonen(S. Malinski, M. Necas)0–2
07:47BUFB. Byram(T. Thompson, A. Tuch)1–2
09:46COLB. Nelson(R. Colton, G. Brindley)1–3
13:28BUFJ. Greenway(O. Power, J. Doan)2–3

2ndshots 8–12

14:56BUFT. Thompsonpower play(I. Rosen, P. Krebs)3–3
16:22COLG. Brindley(J. Manson, B. Burns)3–4

3rdshots 7–16

16:53COLM. Necas(N. MacKinnon, S. Girard)3–5
18:11COLG. Landeskogempty net(M. Necas)3–6

score reads BUF–COL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.60

COL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.029

COL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

56.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.93Expected goals5.60

COL 66% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal34

4High-danger chances6

55All attempts (Corsi)72

Adjusted for score: BUF 48% · COL 52%

Faceoffs · COL won67%off65%neu45%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF1 / 4 · 0.84 xG

COL2 / 6 · 2.65 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF2 / 17 · 1.63 xG

COL3 / 17 · 1.84 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF0 / 34 · 0.45 xG

COL1 / 49 · 1.11 xG

COL went 3-for-17 from medium danger on 1.84 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

3 G · 2.93 xG · +0.1

COL

6 G · 5.60 xG · +0.4

01234567

BUF finished +0.1 against expected, COL +0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

WRIST0/17

SNAP1/6

SLAP2/7

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/3

BAT0/1

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

OTHER0/16

COL

WRIST2/25

SNAP4/15

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/8

BACKHAND0/2

BAT0/1

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

OTHER0/14

BUF

COL

Off the rush

2 G on 25

1.91 xG

4 G on 38

3.60 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.54 xG

1 G on 2

0.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 0-for-17, COL 2-for-25. COL scored 4 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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 27/30 · .900

+2.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/62.6+0.7

Medium3/171.8-1.2

Low1/491.1+0.1

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 · 1/3 · .333

+3.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/62.6+0.7

Medium3/171.8-1.2

Low1/491.1+0.1

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

M. Blackwood

COL · 18/21 · .857

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.8-0.2

Medium2/171.6-0.4

Low0/340.5+0.5

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

97 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

39 shots

Final

97 shots

COL

58 shots

BUF COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, COL 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

M. Necas

#88 · C · COL

2 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:37 on ice · +4

T. Thompson

#72 · C · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:37 on ice · -1

G. Brindley

#54 · C · COL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 13:02 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Nov 13

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:52 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

Colorado's edge here is structural. The model projects a 2.4-2.9 game with the Avalanche at 58% win probability — the clearest read in a tight matchup.

The underlying play bears that out. Colorado dominates 5v5 possession with 57.0% Corsi while generating 57.0% xG, compared to Buffalo's 49.0% Corsi and 50.0% xG. That's systematic out-play in territory and chance creation — the Sabres are being out-possessed and out-chanced.

Recent form widens the gap. The Avalanche are 6-1-3 over their last 10, while Buffalo sits at -7 goal differential in the same stretch. One team is surging; the other is adrift.

Both carry a regression risk. Colorado's 1.021 PDO and Buffalo's 1.020 are running hot, inflating recent results. Some of that luck will evaporate; the model's 58% already accounts for it.

Colorado owns the rest edge — 1 day of layoff versus Buffalo's 4. That's marginal against the underlying talent gap.

S. Wedgewood on a back-to-back for Buffalo could matter. If he's benched or visibly fatigued, Colorado runs the table. If he's sharp, it's Colorado's edge in shot quality that carries the day.

The key matchup is Artturi Lehkonen (1.11 xG/60, 18G 22A, 6 HD goals) against Buffalo's top targets. Jason Zucker (1.07 xG/60, 14G 14A, 6 HD goals, 15.1% shooting) and Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 15G 18A, 2 HD goals, 11.5% shooting) will carry the Sabres' offense, but Lehkonen's xG volume and efficiency edge suggests Colorado's scorers will land first.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 59%

58%

COL

Model favorite

42%

58%

BUF50COL

COL by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score BUF 2.4–2.9 COL; 17% 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

BUF← edge

edge →COL

50.0%57.0%

49.0%57.0%

2.553.03

2.552.30

2.352.63

1.901.56

1.0201.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

3-3-4

-7 GD · 4d rest

COL

6-1-3

+15 GD · 1d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
S. Wedgewood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Avalanche are the hotter team by points pace (6-1-3 in their last 10).
The Sabres are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Sabres have 3 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

4 days rest.879 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

COL

Expected in goal

S. Wedgewood

back-to-back.972 last start

Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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

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

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page