Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
Breakdown · BUF at PIT

Penguins hold off the Sabres

The verdict · stolen

The Penguins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.36–2.94 and won anyway.

BUF 2 · PIT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:40 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 Penguins escaped with a 4-2 win despite forfeiting the underlying game. Pittsburgh's expected goals landed at 2.94 to Buffalo's 4.36—a split that reads 40-60 and should have favored the Sabres decisively. T. Jarry stole this one, stopping 29 of 31 shots at a 0.935 save percentage and posting a +2.36 above expected. U. Luukkonen was less fortunate, stopping 15 of 18.

The chasm opens at close range. Buffalo generated eight high-danger chances. They scored zero. Jarry was 8-for-8 on those chances—a shutout in the scoring area. Pittsburgh converted three of their four goals from low-danger territory, the kind of finishes that expose a goaltender's margins. Off the rush, Pittsburgh scored on three of 21 chances while Buffalo buried two of 27.

Pittsburgh won the game Buffalo should have won. The Penguins held 38 percent of shot attempts and 40 percent of expected goals. Connor Dewar's wrist shot from the slot in the third period (19:02) marked the moment Pittsburgh pulled away, but the Sabres' real collapse happened earlier—in Jarry's glove, and in their failure to finish the quality chances he left.

Buffalo underperformed their expected goals by 2.36, a cavernous miss rate. Pittsburgh overperformed by 1.06, half as much but enough. Goaltending decided this, and Jarry's 100 percent save percentage on high-danger chances left no room for interpretation.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 26
BUF
2
PIT
4

Penguins hold off the Sabres

Chances 4.4 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sabres deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
4.36
PIT
2.94
60% of the chances40%

The board read BUF 2, PIT 4. The chances read BUF 4.4, PIT 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+1.1
goals above expected
PIT2.94 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
BUF4.36 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres left 2.4 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 17:09PITM. Dumba0–1
  2. P3 07:20BUFJ. Zucker1–1
  3. P3 07:51PITB. Rust1–2
  4. P3 12:34PITK. Hayes1–3
  5. P3 15:42BUFJ. Quinn2–3
  6. P3 19:02PITC. DewarEN2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
49 shots
2
Final
79 shots
PIT
30 shots
4
BUF attackPIT attack
BUF PIT Goal
49
shots · 2 in
30
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFPIT
0 / 8
1.77 xG
High danger
1 / 3
1.31 xG
2 / 16
1.92 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.18 xG
0 / 36
0.67 xG
Low
2 / 32
0.46 xG

The Sabres went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
T. Jarry
+2.4
PIT · 29/31
C
U. Luukkonen
−0.1
BUF · 15/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins hold off the Sabres

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 4–3
  1. 17:09PITM. Dumba0–1
2ndshots 8–8no goals
    3rdshots 19–8
    1. 07:20BUFJ. Zucker(J. Quinn, R. McLeod)1–1
    2. 07:51PITB. Rust(R. Shea)1–2
    3. 12:34PITK. Hayes(E. Karlsson, P. Wotherspoon)1–3
    4. 15:42BUFJ. Quinn(J. Zucker, M. Samuelsson)2–3
    5. 19:02PITC. Dewarempty net(D. Heinen, R. Shea)2–4

    score reads BUF–PIT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.94
    PIT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.054
    PIT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    43.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.36Expected goals2.94
    BUF 60% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal19
    8High-danger chances3
    60All attempts (Corsi)46
    Adjusted for score: BUF 60% · PIT 40%
    Faceoffs · PIT won43%off77%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    BUF0 / 8 · 1.77 xG
    PIT1 / 3 · 1.31 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    BUF2 / 16 · 1.92 xG
    PIT1 / 11 · 1.18 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    BUF0 / 36 · 0.67 xG
    PIT2 / 32 · 0.46 xG

    BUF went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.77 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    BUF
    2 G · 4.36 xG · -2.4
    PIT
    4 G · 2.94 xG · +1.1
    012345

    BUF finished -2.4 against expected, PIT +1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    BUF
    WRIST1/29
    SLAP0/6
    SNAP0/6
    TIP IN1/6
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/11
    PIT
    WRIST3/15
    SLAP0/5
    SNAP0/4
    TIP IN1/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/16
    BUF
    PIT
    Off the rush
    2 G on 27
    2.83 xG
    3 G on 21
    2.50 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.62 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.10 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-29, PIT 3-for-15. PIT 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
    U. Luukkonen
    BUF · 15/18 · .833
    -0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/31.3+0.3
    Medium1/111.2+0.2
    Low2/320.5-1.5

    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

    T. Jarry
    PIT · 29/31 · .935
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/81.8+1.8
    Medium2/161.9-0.1
    Low0/360.7+0.7

    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

    79 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    BUF
    49 shots
    2
    Final
    79 shots
    PIT
    30 shots
    4
    BUF attackPIT attack
    BUF PIT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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
    R. Shea
    #5 · D · PIT
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 19:10 on ice · +2
    J. Quinn
    #22 · R · BUF
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:39 on ice · +1
    J. Zucker
    #17 · L · BUF
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:28 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Nov 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:39 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 2.5–2.7 game with Pittsburgh at 53% win probability. This is about as close to even as the numbers allow.

    The underlying metrics confirm it. Buffalo runs 50.0% expected-goal share and 49.0% Corsi%, Pittsburgh 51.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%. Both teams are fighting to a draw in possession and shot quality. Buffalo's PDO of 1.020 versus Pittsburgh's 1.012 tells a story: the Sabres are riding hot, and regression is coming.

    Jason Zucker is Buffalo's engine. At 1.07 xG/60 with 15.1% shooting, he's produced 14 goals and 14 assists, 6 from high-danger areas. Josh Doan tracks him at 1.01 xG/60 and 11.5% conversion (15 goals, 18 assists), though only 2 came from high-danger areas. Pittsburgh counters with Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 high-danger). But Filip Hallander, who generates 1.28 xG/60, is sidelined pending evaluation after being recalled.

    Both teams have defensive vulnerabilities. Jack Quinn (Buffalo) and Caleb Jones (Pittsburgh) are weak links. Here's the odd part: neither team has scored high-danger or rebound goals at any rate, suggesting both goaltending and structure are holding.

    The 53% for Pittsburgh is real but narrow. This is a coin flip.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 53%
    53%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    BUF50PIT

    PIT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.7 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
    BUF← edge
    edge →PIT
    50.0%51.0%
    49.0%50.0%
    2.552.66
    2.552.55
    2.352.45
    1.902.12
    1.0201.012

    PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.012) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    BUF
    4-5-1
    -3 GD · 3d rest
    PIT
    3-4-3
    -4 GD · 3d rest
    1.020
    BUF PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    BUF
    Expected in goal
    U. Luukkonen
    3 days rest.967 last start
    Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    PIT
    Expected in goal
    S. Murashov
    3 days rest.857 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
    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
    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