Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · WPG at BUF

Sabres run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Dec 1

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 1 · BUF 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:29 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's 5-1 demolition of Winnipeg was no accident. The Sabres controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (3.23–2.11) and 56% of shot attempts (31–24). The scoreboard merely confirmed what the underlying metrics already revealed—pure dominance.

U. Luukkonen (BUF) was exceptional, posting a 0.958 save percentage and stopping 1.11 goals above expected. E. Comrie (WPG) posted 0.786, surrendering 1.54 more than expected. The goaltending disparity defined the evening.

Buffalo's execution was ruthless. They converted three high-danger chances to Winnipeg's two. Off the rush, three goals on 31 attempts. The Sabres crashed the net and converted two of three rebound opportunities. Winnipeg scored once on 2.11 expected goals, underperforming by 1.11 and deserving worse.

The Sabres finished with 5 goals on 3.23 expected—a 1.77-goal overperformance. When underlying dominance (60% xG, 56% shot attempts) aligns with elite finishing, the scoreboard isn't a surprise. It's inevitable.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 1

WPG

BUF

Sabres run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

2.11

BUF

3.23

40% of the chances61%

The board read WPG 1, BUF 5. The chances read WPG 2.1, BUF 3.2.

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

Luck check

BUF

+1.8

goals above expected

BUF3.23 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG2.11 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Sabres scored 1.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 02:46BUFJ. ZuckerPP0–1
P1 03:01BUFB. Byram0–2
P1 14:54BUFJ. Norris0–3
P2 11:26WPGK. Connor1–3
P2 12:49BUFA. Tuch1–4
P3 00:41BUFJ. Norris1–5

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

Where the shots came from

WPG

36 shots

Final

75 shots

BUF

39 shots

WPG BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGBUF

1 / 2

0.40 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.83 xG

0 / 11

1.15 xG

Medium

2 / 15

1.69 xG

0 / 33

0.56 xG

Low

2 / 40

0.70 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 2, BUF 1 of 3.

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

In the net

B+

T. Milic

+1.2

WPG · 15/17

B+

U. Luukkonen

+1.1

BUF · 23/24

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres run the Jets 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 8–14

02:46BUFJ. Zuckerpower play(J. Doan, J. Norris)0–1
03:01BUFB. Byram(J. Quinn, C. Timmins)0–2
14:54BUFJ. Norris(T. Thompson, Z. Benson)0–3

2ndshots 6–7

11:26WPGK. Connor(J. Morrissey, M. Scheifele)1–3
12:49BUFA. Tuch(J. Doan)1–4

3rdshots 10–10

00:41BUFJ. Norris(Z. Benson, R. Dahlin)1–5

score reads WPG–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.23

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.8

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.065

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

55.8%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.11Expected goals3.23

BUF 61% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal31

2High-danger chances3

46All attempts (Corsi)58

Adjusted for score: WPG 52% · BUF 48%

Faceoffs · BUF won60%off50%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG1 / 2 · 0.40 xG

BUF1 / 3 · 0.83 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG0 / 11 · 1.15 xG

BUF2 / 15 · 1.69 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG0 / 33 · 0.56 xG

BUF2 / 40 · 0.70 xG

BUF went 2-for-40 from low danger on 0.70 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

1 G · 2.11 xG · -1.1

BUF

5 G · 3.23 xG · +1.8

0123456

WPG finished -1.1 against expected, BUF +1.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

WRIST0/22

SLAP1/7

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/2

SNAP0/2

OTHER0/10

BUF

WRIST2/27

SLAP0/4

TIP IN1/5

BACKHAND2/3

SNAP0/0

OTHER0/19

WPG

BUF

Off the rush

1 G on 22

1.50 xG

3 G on 31

2.51 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.36 xG

2 G on 3

0.53 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-22, BUF 2-for-27. BUF 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

E. Comrie

WPG · 11/14 · .786

+0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.8-0.2

Medium2/151.7-0.3

Low2/400.7-1.3

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

T. Milic

WPG · 15/17 · .882

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.8-0.2

Medium2/151.7-0.3

Low2/400.7-1.3

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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 23/24 · .958

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.4-0.6

Medium0/111.1+1.1

Low0/330.6+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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

36 shots

Final

75 shots

BUF

39 shots

WPG BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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

J. Norris

#9 · C · BUF

2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:25 on ice · +1

Z. Benson

#6 · L · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 15:05 on ice · +1

J. Doan

#91 · R · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:43 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:58 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 game with Buffalo at 54% win probability—a genuine pick'em.

Winnipeg is running cold: -5 goal differential over its last 10. Buffalo has generated more chances at even strength (50.0% xG% vs. Winnipeg's 48.0%, both at 49.0% Corsi%), but the Sabres' 1.020 PDO signals a team running hot and due for regression. Winnipeg's 0.998 PDO cuts the other way. This is a game where goaltending decides it.

C. Ellis and E. Comrie are both on back-to-backs. Backup minutes are possible; fresher goaltending becomes an edge. Colin Miller anchors Winnipeg's defense poorly; Jack Quinn the same for Buffalo. Both teams are logging implausible 0% rates for high-danger goals and rebound goals—a data quirk worth monitoring once the puck drops.

Nino Niederreiter drives the Jets at 0.87 xG/60 with 6 goals and 6 assists and 3 high-danger chances; his 8.6% shooting is low enough to signal positive regression incoming. Kyle Connor runs 0.83 xG/60 with 25 goals and 30 assists, 2 high-danger chances, but 13.0% shooting is a ceiling he cannot sustain. Jason Zucker leads the Sabres at 1.07 xG/60 and 15.1% shooting (14 goals, 14 assists, 6 high-danger chances)—the league's elite pace actually holding. Josh Doan adds 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists, 2 high-danger chances, and 11.5% shooting: high volume, lower variance.

Genuine toss-up with execution in the margins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 54%

54%

BUF

Model favorite

46%

54%

WPG50BUF

BUF by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.5–2.7 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

WPG← edge

edge →BUF

48.0%50.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.342.55

2.552.55

1.902.35

2.101.90

0.9981.020

BUF holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 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

WPG

4-6-0

-5 GD · 1d rest

BUF

5-5-0

-2 GD · 1d rest

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF 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

C. Ellis is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
E. Comrie is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Jets are underwater at -5 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

WPG

Expected in goal

E. Comrie

back-to-back.913 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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.

BUF

Expected in goal

C. Ellis

back-to-back.917 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

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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