Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater

Breakdown · SEA at PIT

Kraken steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Nov 22

SEASeattle Kraken3 PITPittsburgh Penguins2

The verdict · stolen

The Kraken stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.18–4.91 and won anyway.

SEA 3 · PIT 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:16 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 Kraken won a game that belonged to Pittsburgh. Seattle beat the Penguins 3–2 in overtime despite trailing 4.91–2.18 in expected goals—a 69–31 advantage for the home team.

Control was never the issue. The Penguins took 60% of shot attempts (32–21), generated nine high-danger chances to two, and pushed their offensive efficiency—0.074 expected goals per shot versus Seattle's 0.044. They should have won.

P. Grubauer had other ideas. The Seattle goaltender posted a 0.938 save percentage and stopped 2.91 goals above expected. He shut down all nine of Pittsburgh's high-danger chances. S. Murashov coughed up 0.82 goals above his baseline. The Penguins' forwards couldn't capitalize: 0 for 9 on high-danger attempts.

Seattle made their break count. The Kraken scored three goals from low-danger spots and were lethal on the rush, converting three times from 25 chances. Brandon Montour's wrist shot from the top of the circles at 04:10 of overtime ended it.

The math heavily favored Pittsburgh. The Penguins' shot quality advantage was real. The result, though, belongs to Seattle.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Nov 22

SEA

PIT

Kraken steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

Chances 2.2 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

2.18

PIT

4.91

31% of the chances69%

The board read SEA 3, PIT 2. The chances read SEA 2.2, PIT 4.9.

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

Luck check

SEA

+0.8

goals above expected

SEA2.18 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT4.91 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Penguins left 2.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P2 01:24SEAM. Marchment1–0
P2 16:16PITS. Crosby1–1
P3 05:56PITE. MalkinPP1–2
P3 12:36SEAM. Beniers2–2
OT 04:10SEAB. Montour3–2

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

Where the shots came from

SEA

35 shots

Final

88 shots

PIT

53 shots

SEA PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEAPIT

0 / 2

0.46 xG

High danger

0 / 9

2.11 xG

0 / 9

1.06 xG

Medium

2 / 18

1.97 xG

3 / 38

0.66 xG

Low

0 / 39

0.83 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 9 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

P. Grubauer

+2.9

SEA · 30/32

D-

S. Murashov

−0.8

PIT · 18/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kraken steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

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 3–9no goals

2ndshots 12–13

01:24SEAM. Marchment1–0
16:16PITS. Crosby(C. Dewar)1–1

3rdshots 5–8

05:56PITE. Malkinpower play(B. Kindel, S. Crosby)1–2
12:36SEAM. Beniers(M. Marchment, R. Evans)2–2

OTshots 1–2

04:10SEAB. Montour(F. Gaudreau, R. Evans)3–2

score reads SEA–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.18

SEA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.8

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.031

SEA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

42.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.18Expected goals4.91

PIT 69% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal32

2High-danger chances9

49All attempts (Corsi)66

Adjusted for score: SEA 42% · PIT 58%

Faceoffs · PIT won62%off54%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA0 / 2 · 0.46 xG

PIT0 / 9 · 2.11 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA0 / 9 · 1.06 xG

PIT2 / 18 · 1.97 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA3 / 38 · 0.66 xG

PIT0 / 39 · 0.83 xG

SEA went 3-for-38 from low danger on 0.66 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

3 G · 2.18 xG · +0.8

PIT

2 G · 4.91 xG · -2.9

0123456

SEA finished +0.8 against expected, PIT -2.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

WRIST3/21

SLAP0/8

TIP IN0/3

SNAP0/1

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/14

PIT

WRIST2/28

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/8

SNAP0/6

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/13

SEA

PIT

Off the rush

3 G on 25

1.97 xG

1 G on 35

3.41 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

1 G on 5

0.68 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 3-for-21, PIT 2-for-28. SEA scored 3 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

P. Grubauer

SEA · 30/32 · .938

+2.9

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/92.1+2.1

Medium2/182.0-0.0

Low0/390.8+0.8

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

S. Murashov

PIT · 18/21 · .857

-0.8

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium0/91.1+1.1

Low3/380.7-2.3

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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SEA

35 shots

Final

88 shots

PIT

53 shots

SEA PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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

S. Crosby

#87 · C · PIT

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:26 on ice

R. Evans

#41 · D · SEA

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:56 on ice · +1

M. Marchment

#27 · L · SEA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:38 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:15 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 favors Pittsburgh by a significant margin: 56% win probability and a projected 2.3-2.7 goal spread.

The Penguins' edge rests on two pillars. First, they dominate underlying play, generating 51.0% expected goals and 50.0% Corsi at 5v5, while Seattle manages just 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi. Second, they arrive refreshed on six days of rest; the Kraken stumble in after one. That's the model's entire argument.

Goaltending adds a wrinkle. J. Daccord starts on the second night of a back-to-back, which invites the question of Seattle using a fresh arm instead. If Daccord plays while fatigued, Pittsburgh's shot volume advantage could compound into goals.

On Seattle's side, Shane Wright remains the primary engine: 0.77 xG/60 with 8 goals and 10 assists, with 4 high-danger goals and 10.4% shooting. Berkly Catton tracks similarly at 0.68 xG/60, with 6 goals, 8 assists, 5 high-danger goals, and 8.8% shooting. Both create at volume, but volume alone doesn't overcome a rest deficit.

Pittsburgh's forward core is led by Rickard Rakell, who drives 1.01 xG/60 and has 13 goals with 13 assists. His 12.1% shooting and 3 high-danger goals suggest he's hot and ready to keep shooting. Filip Hallander—1.28 xG/60 with 3 assists and 0 goals—is likely unavailable, currently on injured reserve undergoing evaluation.

The defensive vulnerabilities tip toward an offensive script. Chandler Stephenson represents Seattle's weak link; Caleb Jones does the same for Pittsburgh. Both sides invite scoring chances at the back, though the Kraken's rest disadvantage means Pittsburgh will move the puck and transition sharply—the very thing that breaks a tired defense.

The model's lean is straightforward: better play, better rest, better odds.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 56%

56%

PIT

Model favorite

44%

56%

SEA50PIT

PIT by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.7 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

SEA← edge

edge →PIT

46.0%51.0%

45.0%50.0%

2.132.66

2.512.55

1.872.45

1.952.12

1.0111.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SEA

5-3-2

-1 GD · 1d rest

PIT

4-3-3

+4 GD · 6d rest

1.011

SEA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
J. Daccord is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Penguins have 5 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

SEA

Expected in goal

J. Daccord

back-to-back.917 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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.

PIT

Expected in goal

S. Murashov

6 days rest1.000 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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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