Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater

Breakdown · BUF at WPG

E. Comrie stands tall as the Jets edge the Sabres

FinalFri, Dec 5

The verdict · stolen

The Jets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.88–2.74 and won anyway.

BUF 1 · WPG 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:04 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

Winnipeg won a game it had no business winning. The Sabres controlled 64% of expected goals at even strength, yet lost 4–1. One goaltender's near-perfect game decided it: E. Comrie stopped 3.88 goals above expected.

The Sabres generated 4.88 xG to Winnipeg's 2.74, a 64%-36% split that should produce a narrow result, not a blowout. Buffalo created 9 high-danger chances; Winnipeg created 1 and converted it. The Jets were surgical on the rush, scoring 3 goals on 19 chances. Buffalo crashed the net for 9 rebound opportunities and buried one.

E. Comrie stopped 34 of 35 shots—a 0.971 save percentage—and was perfect on high-danger looks: 9-for-9. U. Luukkonen, by contrast, allowed 19 of 22, posting a 0.864 SV%. The Sabres underperformed their xG by 3.88 goals; Winnipeg overperformed by 1.26.

Gabriel Vilardi opened the score with a wrist shot from the top of the circles, an early goal that tilted momentum. Buffalo's efficient play disintegrated after that—they outshot Winnipeg 35–23, generated more chances at every level, and lost anyway.

The result: a 4–1 scoreline that flattens what was a dominant Buffalo performance into an afterthought. One goalie played near-perfectly. That decided everything.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 5

BUF

WPG

E. Comrie stands tall as the Jets edge the Sabres

Chances 4.9 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

4.88

WPG

2.74

64% of the chances36%

The board read BUF 1, WPG 4. The chances read BUF 4.9, WPG 2.7.

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

Luck check

WPG

+1.3

goals above expected

WPG2.74 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF4.88 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Sabres left 3.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 04:24WPGK. Connor0–1
P1 14:44BUFJ. ZuckerPP1–1
P2 02:22WPGT. Pearson1–2
P2 18:42WPGC. Koepke1–3
P3 19:26WPGG. VilardiEN1–4

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

56 shots

Final

91 shots

WPG

35 shots

BUF WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFWPG

0 / 9

2.47 xG

High danger

1 / 1

0.62 xG

1 / 13

1.36 xG

Medium

3 / 13

1.52 xG

0 / 45

1.05 xG

Low

0 / 28

0.59 xG

The Sabres went 0 for 9 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

E. Comrie

+3.9

WPG · 34/35

U. Luukkonen

−0.3

BUF · 19/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

E. Comrie stands tall as the Jets edge 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 15–8

04:24WPGK. Connor(G. Vilardi, D. Samberg)0–1
14:44BUFJ. Zuckerpower play(J. Norris, R. Dahlin)1–1

2ndshots 11–9

02:22WPGT. Pearson(C. Koepke)1–2
18:42WPGC. Koepke(M. Barron, D. DeMelo)1–3

3rdshots 9–6

19:26WPGG. Vilardiempty net(K. Connor, M. Scheifele)1–4

score reads BUF–WPG

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.74

WPG chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.080

WPG puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

38.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.88Expected goals2.74

BUF 64% of the chance quality

35Shots on goal23

9High-danger chances1

67All attempts (Corsi)42

Adjusted for score: BUF 65% · WPG 35%

Faceoffs · WPG won55%off40%neu69%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF0 / 9 · 2.47 xG

WPG1 / 1 · 0.62 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF1 / 13 · 1.36 xG

WPG3 / 13 · 1.52 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF0 / 45 · 1.05 xG

WPG0 / 28 · 0.59 xG

BUF went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.47 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

1 G · 4.88 xG · -3.9

WPG

4 G · 2.74 xG · +1.3

0123456

BUF finished -3.9 against expected, WPG +1.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

WRIST1/32

SLAP0/12

BACKHAND0/4

SNAP0/3

TIP IN0/3

BAT0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/11

WPG

WRIST3/23

SLAP0/8

BACKHAND1/2

SNAP0/1

TIP IN0/1

BAT0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/7

BUF

WPG

Off the rush

0 G on 30

2.55 xG

3 G on 19

2.17 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 9

1.81 xG

1 G on 2

0.16 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-32, WPG 3-for-23. WPG 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 · 19/22 · .864

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/10.6-0.4

Medium3/131.5-1.5

Low0/280.6+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

E. Comrie

WPG · 34/35 · .971

+3.9

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/92.5+2.5

Medium1/131.4+0.4

Low0/451.1+1.1

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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

56 shots

Final

91 shots

WPG

35 shots

BUF WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, WPG 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

K. Connor

#81 · L · WPG

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:28 on ice · +2

G. Vilardi

#13 · C · WPG

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:09 on ice · +2

C. Koepke

#45 · L · WPG

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 11:34 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Dec 5

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:03 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

This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects a 2.5–2.6 goal spread with the Jets at exactly 50% win probability—essentially a coin flip.

Buffalo is the hotter team, racing to 6-4-0 over their last 10. Winnipeg is underwater, posting a -9 goal differential in the same span. Yet the season's 5v5 numbers suggest these teams are functionally identical: Buffalo's xG% sits at 50.0% to Winnipeg's 48.0%, while both teams sit at 49.0% Corsi%. The real divergence is in the margins. Buffalo's PDO of 1.020 is running hot relative to Winnipeg's 0.998—a gap that whispers regression.

Both E. Comrie and C. Ellis are on back-to-backs, so monitor the net for lineup adjustments or tired starters.

The scoring edge belongs to Buffalo's Jason Zucker, who is generating 1.07 xG/60 while carrying 14 goals and 14 assists, with 6 high-danger opportunities. Josh Doan runs a similar offensive profile at 1.01 xG/60, having posted 15 goals and 18 assists on an 11.5% shooting rate. On the other side, Kyle Connor (25 goals, 30 assists) offers higher volume but lower generation at 0.83 xG/60, while Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6 goals, 6 assists) sits squarely in the middle—enough offensive heat to matter, not quite enough to separate.

The Sabres' PDO is the only structural signal pointing anywhere: that 1.020 suggests some of Buffalo's points pace comes from variance, and variance reverts. Everything else—the shot rates, the pace, the personnel—argues for exactly what the model says it is: a toss-up.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WPG 50%

50%

WPG

Model favorite

50%

BUF50WPG

WPG by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.6 WPG; 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 →WPG

50.0%48.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.552.34

2.552.55

2.351.90

1.902.10

1.0200.998

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.998) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

6-4-0

+5 GD · 1d rest

WPG

3-6-1

-9 GD · 1d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

WPG 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

E. Comrie is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
C. Ellis is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (6-4-0 in their last 10).
The Jets are underwater at -9 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

BUF

Expected in goal

C. Ellis

back-to-back.857 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.

WPG

Expected in goal

E. Comrie

back-to-back.935 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.

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page