Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
Breakdown · PIT at NSH

Predators run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 1 · NSH 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:56 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 Predators won 2-1 in overtime, but the underlying numbers say they should have won by more. Nashville controlled 66% of expected goals (4.09–2.12), held 64% of shot attempts, and won the high-danger-chance battle 4–3. A. Silovs's 0.933 SV% (+2.09 vs expected) kept Pittsburgh close.

Nashville was efficient in transition, scoring twice on 32 rush attempts. F. Forsberg and Steven Stamkos each notched 1G, with Steven Stamkos's snap shot from the high slot deciding it at 00:44 of overtime.

The disconnect: Nashville underperformed its own xG by 2.09 goals, wasting quality chances. Four rebound opportunities went unconverted despite crashing the net. J. Saros (16/17, 0.941 SV%, +1.12 vs expected) was steady in net.

A. Silovs was the decisive factor — saving nearly two full goals beyond expectation. Without his performance, this becomes a convincing Predators win instead of a one-goal edge.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 14
PIT
1
NSH
2

Predators run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
2.12
NSH
4.09
34% of the chances66%

The board read PIT 1, NSH 2. The chances read PIT 2.1, NSH 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
−2.1
goals above expected
NSH4.09 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT2.12 expected · 1 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
  1. P2 13:49PITE. Malkin1–0
  2. P3 18:50NSHF. ForsbergPP1–1
  3. OT 00:44NSHS. Stamkos1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
26 shots
1
Final
73 shots
NSH
47 shots
2
PIT attackNSH attack
PIT NSH Goal
26
shots · 1 in
47
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITNSH
1 / 3
0.76 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.01 xG
0 / 9
0.94 xG
Medium
2 / 22
2.44 xG
0 / 24
0.42 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.63 xG

High-danger looks: PIT 1 of 3, NSH 0 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Silovs
+2.1
PIT · 28/30
B+
J. Saros
+1.1
NSH · 16/17
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators run the Penguins 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 8–8no goals
    2ndshots 2–12
    1. 13:49PITE. Malkin(M. Dumba)1–0
    3rdshots 7–8
    1. 18:50NSHF. Forsbergpower play1–1
    OTshots 0–2
    1. 00:44NSHS. Stamkos(B. Skjei)1–2

    score reads PIT–NSH

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.09
    NSH chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.003
    NSH puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    64.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.12Expected goals4.09
    NSH 66% of the chance quality
    17Shots on goal30
    3High-danger chances4
    36All attempts (Corsi)65
    Adjusted for score: PIT 35% · NSH 66%
    Faceoffs · NSH won58%off53%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PIT1 / 3 · 0.76 xG
    NSH0 / 4 · 1.01 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PIT0 / 9 · 0.94 xG
    NSH2 / 22 · 2.44 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PIT0 / 24 · 0.42 xG
    NSH0 / 39 · 0.63 xG

    NSH went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.01 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PIT
    1 G · 2.12 xG · -1.1
    NSH
    2 G · 4.09 xG · -2.1
    012345

    PIT finished -1.1 against expected, NSH -2.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PIT
    SNAP0/11
    WRIST1/5
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    BAT0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/10
    NSH
    SNAP1/16
    WRIST0/18
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND1/2
    BAT0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/18
    PIT
    NSH
    Off the rush
    1 G on 20
    1.78 xG
    2 G on 32
    3.03 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.22 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.45 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 0-for-11, NSH 1-for-16. NSH 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
    A. Silovs
    PIT · 28/30 · .933
    +2.1
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/41.0+1.0
    Medium2/222.4+0.4
    Low0/390.6+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. Saros
    NSH · 16/17 · .941
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.8-0.2
    Medium0/90.9+0.9
    Low0/240.4+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

    73 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PIT
    26 shots
    1
    Final
    73 shots
    NSH
    47 shots
    2
    PIT attackNSH attack
    PIT NSH Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, NSH 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. Skjei
    #76 · D · NSH
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:35 on ice
    F. Forsberg
    #9 · L · NSH
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:24 on ice · +1
    S. Stamkos
    #91 · C · NSH
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 17:27 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Nov 14
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:55 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 Nashville at 50% to win. This is as close to a toss as hockey gets.

    The underlying numbers explain why. At even strength, Pittsburgh generates 51.0% of expected goals to Nashville's 49.0%, a margin so thin it evaporates inside normal variance. Shot attempts are dead even at 50.0% Corsi% apiece. The Penguins carry a modest shooting-luck advantage (1.012 PDO) while the Predators carry the inverse (0.992 PDO), but neither gap is large enough to swing a single game.

    Recent form muddies the picture. Pittsburgh is 4–3–3 over their last ten games—a points-pace edge that matters for momentum. Nashville is drowning: –12 in goal differential over the same stretch, the kind of number that usually signals deeper problems than a bad run can cover. The Predators arrive on three days of rest to Pittsburgh's five, a minor advantage that won't overcome recent form.

    Filip Hallander has been recalled from his conditioning loan but is undergoing further evaluation—likely unavailable. Hallander carries 1.28 expected goals per 60 minutes, the highest mark on the roster. His absence forces Pittsburgh to rely on Rickard Rakell, who owns 1.01 xG/60 to go with 13 goals and 13 assists. Rakell shoots 12.1%, aggressive enough to punish chances; he's also logged three high-danger goals.

    Nashville counters with Zachary L'Heureux (0.85 xG/60, 4 goals, 16.0% shooting) and Filip Forsberg (0.80 xG/60, 23 goals, 13.6% shooting). Forsberg is the deeper threat—23 goals this season—while L'Heureux shoots well above league norms. Both skate on a team generating chances at a rate indistinguishable from Pittsburgh's.

    Both teams sit at 0% on high-danger goal rate and rebound goals, implying neither has scored on second chances or greasy areas. It's not sustainable; expect regression. Pittsburgh's defensive weak link is Caleb Jones; Nashville's is Jonathan Marchessault.

    This is a genuine coin flip because the model says so. The underlying numbers—51.0% xG% for Pittsburgh, 49.0% for Nashville—don't resolve into certainty, and recent form can't overcome such a thin edge.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    NSH 51%
    50%
    NSH
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    PIT50NSH

    NSH by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.6–2.6 NSH; 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 →NSH
    51.0%49.0%
    50.0%50.0%
    2.662.48
    2.552.58
    2.451.84
    2.122.21
    1.0120.992

    PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.992) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    PIT
    4-3-3
    +2 GD · 5d rest
    NSH
    2-6-2
    -12 GD · 3d rest
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.992
    NSH PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Things to watch
    • The Penguins are the hotter team by points pace (4-3-3 in their last 10).
    • The Predators are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Penguins have 2 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    PIT
    Expected in goal
    S. Murashov
    5 days rest.889 last start
    Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    NSH
    Expected in goal
    J. Saros
    3 days rest.583 last start
    Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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
    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
    NSH
    Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
    0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
    Filip Forsberg23G 17A
    0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next