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

Penguins edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

The verdict · stolen

The Penguins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.28–4.02 and won anyway.

PIT 4 · CBJ 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:08 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

Columbus generated 55% of expected goals and controlled 55% of shot attempts—29 to Pittsburgh's 24—yet lost 4-3 in overtime. This was a goaltending and transition-efficiency victory, not a play-quality win for Pittsburgh.

T. Jarry stopped 1.02 goals above his expected save total; J. Greaves surrendered 0.72 below his mark. The two-goal swing between goaltenders in a one-goal game decided it. Columbus's attack was legitimate: eight high-danger chances versus Pittsburgh's seven, five rebounds generated (one converted), offensive pressure that should have produced more than three goals. Yet the Penguins converted transition chances at nearly double the rate—three goals on 22 rush attempts versus Columbus's two on 26—and K. Letang finished the game at 00:59 of overtime with a snap shot from the slot.

Z. Werenski led Columbus with a goal and assist in 26:06. S. Crosby (2G, 19:10) and K. Letang (1G, 1A, 22:33) drove Pittsburgh's offense. Neither Werenski's production nor Columbus's statistical dominance changed the result. Pittsburgh's formula was clear: let the opposition control the game, execute ruthlessly in open ice, and trust the goaltender. This is NHL variance—sustained pressure and quality chance generation fall short when the opponent finishes transitions.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 28
PIT
4
CBJ
3

Penguins edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

Chances 3.3 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
3.28
CBJ
4.02
45% of the chances55%

The board read PIT 4, CBJ 3. The chances read PIT 3.3, CBJ 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+0.7
goals above expected
PIT3.28 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ4.02 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
  1. P1 06:10PITS. Crosby1–0
  2. P1 13:40CBJS. Monahan1–1
  3. P2 03:51CBJB. GaunceSH1–2
  4. P2 19:56CBJZ. Werenski1–3
  5. P3 00:13PITB. Rust2–3
  6. P3 08:28PITS. Crosby3–3
  7. OT 00:59PITK. Letang4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
41 shots
4
Final
82 shots
CBJ
41 shots
3
PIT attackCBJ attack
PIT CBJ Goal
41
shots · 4 in
41
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITCBJ
2 / 7
1.83 xG
High danger
2 / 8
1.92 xG
1 / 7
0.74 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.62 xG
1 / 42
0.72 xG
Low
1 / 41
0.49 xG

The Penguins buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
T. Jarry
+1.0
PIT · 26/29
D
J. Greaves
−0.7
CBJ · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

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 8–8
  1. 06:10PITS. Crosby(K. Letang)1–0
  2. 13:40CBJS. Monahan(B. Smith, D. Severson)1–1
2ndshots 7–13
  1. 03:51CBJB. Gaunceshorthanded(M. Wood, Z. Werenski)1–2
  2. 19:56CBJZ. Werenski(C. Coyle)1–3
3rdshots 8–8
  1. 00:13PITB. Rust(E. Karlsson)2–3
  2. 08:28PITS. Crosby(T. Novak, P. Wotherspoon)3–3
OTshots 1–0
  1. 00:59PITK. Letang(T. Novak)4–3

score reads PIT–CBJ

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.28
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.024
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.28Expected goals4.02
CBJ 55% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal29
7High-danger chances8
56All attempts (Corsi)63
Adjusted for score: PIT 48% · CBJ 52%
Faceoffs · CBJ won47%off50%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT2 / 7 · 1.83 xG
CBJ2 / 8 · 1.92 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT1 / 7 · 0.74 xG
CBJ0 / 14 · 1.62 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT1 / 42 · 0.72 xG
CBJ1 / 41 · 0.49 xG

CBJ went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.62 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
4 G · 3.28 xG · +0.7
CBJ
3 G · 4.02 xG · -1.0
012345

PIT finished +0.7 against expected, CBJ -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
SNAP3/15
WRIST0/10
SLAP0/7
TIP IN1/5
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/15
CBJ
SNAP0/14
WRIST1/13
SLAP1/8
TIP IN1/4
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
BACKHAND0/0
OTHER0/22
PIT
CBJ
Off the rush
3 G on 22
2.24 xG
2 G on 26
2.88 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.56 xG
1 G on 5
0.78 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 3-for-15, CBJ 0-for-14. 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
T. Jarry
PIT · 26/29 · .897
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/81.9-0.1
Medium0/141.6+1.6
Low1/410.5-0.5

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

J. Greaves
CBJ · 20/24 · .833
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.8-0.2
Medium1/70.7-0.3
Low1/420.7-0.3

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
41 shots
4
Final
82 shots
CBJ
41 shots
3
PIT attackCBJ attack
PIT CBJ Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, CBJ 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
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 26:06 on ice · -1
K. Letang
#58 · D · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:33 on ice
S. Crosby
#87 · C · PIT
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:10 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Nov 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:07 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 goal spread favoring Pittsburgh, with Columbus at 53% win probability—close enough to a pick'em that the edge is negligible.

Neither team has momentum. The Blue Jackets sit at -7 goal differential over their last 10 games; the Penguins are at -5. Yet at five-on-five, the underlying possession numbers are nearly matched. Columbus edges Pittsburgh in expected goals (52.0% to 51.0%) and Corsi percentage (51.0% to 50.0%), but both margins are marginal. Pittsburgh's PDO sits at 1.012—a sign that shooting luck has been generous—while Columbus runs 1.003, suggesting closer alignment with underlying performance.

The goaltending situation could prove decisive. J. Greaves and T. Jarry are both on back-to-backs, raising the risk of either team deploying a backup or leaning on a fatigued starter in the second half.

Pittsburgh's Attack and Absence

Rickard Rakell carries the forward load: 13 goals on 12.1% shooting, with 1.01 expected goals per 60 minutes and 3 high-danger finishes. That shooting percentage is unsustainable—expect regression—but it proves the offense exists beyond noise. Filip Hallander, who grades at 1.28 xG/60, has been recalled from a conditioning loan with the AHL Penguins for further evaluation and testing. His status remains uncertain, which matters given the offensive depth he represents.

The Penguins' structural problem is brutal. They register 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate—a sign that goals cluster in low-probability moments. Caleb Jones anchors their defense's weakest point.

Columbus Counters

Boone Jenner is Columbus's primary threat, posting 11 goals and 0.98 expected goals per 60 on 9.6% shooting. Mathieu Olivier provides depth: 12 goals at 13.3% shooting, with 1 high-danger finish and 0.89 xG/60. Neither reaches Pittsburgh's individual volume, but Columbus distributes its scoring more evenly.

The Blue Jackets face the same architectural flaw—0% high-danger and 0% rebound goal rates—suggesting both squads rely on opportunism rather than system. Conor Garland marks Columbus's defensive liability.

The Verdict

Columbus's marginal advantage in underlying metrics cannot overcome the teams' identical reliance on low-probability finishes. Pittsburgh's shooting luck will normalize. That 53% edge for Columbus reflects parity, not proven superiority. Expect a game matching its projection: tight, decided by which team converts the few real chances, settled by goaltending discipline on a night when both nets should be tired.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 53%
53%
CBJ
Model favorite
47%
53%
PIT50CBJ

CBJ by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.5–2.7 CBJ; 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 →CBJ
51.0%52.0%
50.0%51.0%
2.662.63
2.552.43
2.452.12
2.121.98
1.0121.003

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.003) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PIT
3-4-3
-5 GD · 1d rest
CBJ
4-2-4
-7 GD · 1d rest
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • J. Greaves is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • T. Jarry is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Blue Jackets are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Penguins are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
T. Jarry
back-to-back.935 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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.

CBJ
Expected in goal
J. Greaves
back-to-back.917 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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
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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
Keep going

Where to next