Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
← Fri, Nov 21 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at BUF

Sabres pull away from the Blackhawks

FinalFri, Nov 21
CHIChicago Blackhawks3BUFBuffalo Sabres9
The verdict · coin flip

The Sabres won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

CHI 3 · BUF 9
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:04 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

Buffalo demolished Chicago 9–3 on a night when expected goals nearly evened — a 2.75–2.61 split that bore no resemblance to the final result.

The gap came from goaltending and execution. Chicago's A. Soderblom allowed 6.2 goals beyond expected, a collapse that essentially ended the game by the second intermission. Buffalo's U. Luukkonen offered the inverse: 100% on high-danger chances, a 0.870 save percentage (20 of 23 shots), and the difference between a tight game and a rout.

Buffalo's play extended beyond goaltending. They held 57% of shot attempts (31 on goal versus 23) and exploited rush chances ruthlessly — 7 goals on 27 rush attempts, a conversion rate that marks elite finishers. They also scored twice from low-danger spots, moments that separate luck from precision. Jacob Bryson's wrist shot from the doorstep at 16:22 of the third period exemplified their opportunism.

Chicago's offensive inefficiency compounded the goaltending problem. The Blackhawks generated five high-danger chances and scored on zero — a shutout on prime-real-estate opportunities that won't recur.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 21
CHI
3
BUF
9

Sabres pull away from the Blackhawks

Chances 2.6 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
2.61
BUF
2.75
49% of the chances51%

The board read CHI 3, BUF 9. The chances read CHI 2.6, BUF 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+6.3
goals above expected
BUF2.75 expected · 9 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.61 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres scored 6.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 13:57BUFJ. Doan0–1
  2. P1 15:19BUFJ. Zucker0–2
  3. P1 17:33BUFB. ByramPP0–3
  4. P1 18:12CHIT. Bertuzzi1–3
  5. P2 05:42BUFR. McLeod1–4
  6. P2 05:50BUFM. Samuelsson1–5
  7. P2 14:45CHIA. Vlasic2–5
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
34 shots
3
Final
73 shots
BUF
39 shots
9
CHI attackBUF attack
CHI BUF Goal
34
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 9 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIBUF
0 / 5
1.09 xG
High danger
2 / 3
0.66 xG
2 / 8
1.05 xG
Medium
5 / 15
1.52 xG
1 / 37
0.47 xG
Low
2 / 42
0.57 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
U. Luukkonen
−0.4
BUF · 20/23
F
A. Soderblom
−6.3
CHI · 22/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres pull away from the Blackhawks

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 6–15
  1. 13:57BUFJ. Doan(T. Thompson, A. Tuch)0–1
  2. 15:19BUFJ. Zucker(J. Quinn, R. Dahlin)0–2
  3. 17:33BUFB. Byrampower play(A. Tuch, R. McLeod)0–3
  4. 18:12CHIT. Bertuzzi(S. Rinzel, C. Bedard)1–3
2ndshots 7–9
  1. 05:42BUFR. McLeod(J. Zucker, C. Timmins)1–4
  2. 05:50BUFM. Samuelsson(I. Rosen, J. Bryson)1–5
  3. 14:45CHIA. Vlasic(R. Greene, S. Rinzel)2–5
  4. 17:31BUFJ. Doan(R. Dahlin, A. Tuch)2–6
3rdshots 10–7
  1. 00:24CHIT. Bertuzzipower play(C. Bedard, F. Nazar)3–6
  2. 01:56BUFT. Thompson(A. Tuch)3–7
  3. 07:07BUFJ. Quinn(B. Byram, J. Zucker)3–8
  4. 16:22BUFJ. Bryson(B. Malenstyn, J. Greenway)3–9

score reads CHI–BUF

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.75
BUF chances
Goals their shots were worth
+6.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.090
BUF puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.61Expected goals2.75
BUF 51% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal31
5High-danger chances3
50All attempts (Corsi)60
Adjusted for score: CHI 51% · BUF 49%
Faceoffs · BUF won41%off76%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI0 / 5 · 1.09 xG
BUF2 / 3 · 0.66 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI2 / 8 · 1.05 xG
BUF5 / 15 · 1.52 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI1 / 37 · 0.47 xG
BUF2 / 42 · 0.57 xG

BUF went 5-for-15 from medium danger on 1.52 expected goals — 3.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
3 G · 2.61 xG · +0.4
BUF
9 G · 2.75 xG · +6.3
012345678910

CHI finished +0.4 against expected, BUF +6.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
WRIST1/16
SNAP0/7
SLAP0/4
TIP IN1/3
BACKHAND1/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/16
BUF
WRIST6/23
SNAP2/5
SLAP0/5
TIP IN1/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/21
CHI
BUF
Off the rush
1 G on 16
1.72 xG
7 G on 27
1.98 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 6
0.60 xG
1 G on 3
0.27 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-16, BUF 6-for-23. BUF scored 7 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. Soderblom
CHI · 22/31 · .710
-6.3
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/30.7-1.3
Medium5/151.5-3.5
Low2/420.6-1.4

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

U. Luukkonen
BUF · 20/23 · .870
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.1+1.1
Medium2/81.1-0.9
Low1/370.5-0.5

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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CHI
34 shots
3
Final
73 shots
BUF
39 shots
9
CHI attackBUF attack
CHI BUF Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, BUF 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
A. Tuch
#89 · R · BUF
0 G · 4 A · 1 SOG · 18:04 on ice · +2
J. Zucker
#17 · L · BUF
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:25 on ice · +3
R. Dahlin
#26 · D · BUF
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:56 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Nov 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:03 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 Buffalo at 59% win probability in a 2.4-2.9 game. The Sabres are the clear pick, even though their recent record masks their true level.

Chicago has looked sharper lately—6-2-2 in their last 10—but that's noise. Buffalo owns the underlying play decisively: 50.0% 5v5 xG to Chicago's 42.0%, a gap that compounds over 60 minutes. Corsi widens the margin, 49.0% to 46.0%, confirming the Sabres generate volume advantage, not variance.

Buffalo's 10-game slide (-12 goal differential) reads as doom until you factor PDO. Their 1.020 PDO means they've converted chances and received goaltending bounces at unsustainable rates. Chicago sits at 0.996, slightly underperforming their underlying play. Regression in Buffalo's direction is the default case—they don't need to improve; they need to normalize. Against Chicago's structural disadvantage in shot attempts and quality, that's the model's edge.

Ellis plays a back-to-back for Chicago. A tired starter or a forced backup call both tilt toward Buffalo.

Jason Zucker anchors Buffalo's attack at 1.07 xG/60 with 14 goals and 6 high-danger tallies. Josh Doan parallels at 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals, a more balanced producer. Together they form Buffalo's volume threat.

Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi at 0.85 xG/60 and 20 goals—high volume, high shooting at 18.0%. Connor Bedard runs 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals but 11.8% shooting, suggesting he converts at his underlying rate rather than exceeding it. Chicago's offensive output is real, but margin-thin against Buffalo's underlying advantage.

The Sabres enter as favorites because they've built enough xG lead to weather variance. Chicago's hot form matters less than the math underneath. Buffalo's PDO regression plus their shot generation lead compound into the 59% call. That's the play.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 59%
59%
BUF
Model favorite
41%
59%
CHI50BUF

BUF by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.4–2.9 BUF; 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
CHI← edge
edge →BUF
42.0%50.0%
46.0%49.0%
2.172.55
2.942.55
1.842.35
2.411.90
0.9961.020

BUF holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CHI
6-2-2
+12 GD · 2d rest
BUF
3-5-2
-12 GD · 1d rest
0.996
CHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.020
BUF PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • C. Ellis is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Blackhawks are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
  • The Sabres are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CHI
Expected in goal
A. Soderblom
2 days rest.905 last start
Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF
Expected in goal
C. Ellis
back-to-back.829 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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
CHI
Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
Connor Bedard17G 27A
0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page