Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · BUF at EDM

Sabres edge the Oilers in overtime

Final / OTTue, Dec 9

The verdict · coin flip

The Sabres won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

BUF 4 · EDM 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:45 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 outlasted Edmonton 4-3 in overtime despite a tight expected-goals margin (3.56–3.50), victory built on superior goaltending and clinical execution in the moments that mattered. The Oilers controlled possession with 52% of shot attempts (30–28 on goal) but Buffalo's efficiency stopped them at the line.

Edmonton created five high-danger chances to Buffalo's four, yet the Sabres were ruthless in their own high-danger zone—scoring on 40% of their HD chances (2 goals on 5). Buffalo's rush game was equally lethal: four goals on 25 rush attempts, a far higher conversion rate than the Oilers' effective but limited rebound work (five opportunities, two goals).

C. Ellis was the difference-maker, saving 3.6 goals above expected. A. Lyon posted a 0.875 save percentage (21 on 24), while S. Skinner managed 0.857 (24 on 28) for Edmonton. Buffalo's power play was dominant: two goals on 15 shots, generating 1.26 expected goals. Alex Tuch ended it with a wrist shot from the slot at 00:33 of overtime.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Dec 9

BUF

EDM

Sabres edge the Oilers in overtime

Chances 3.5 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

3.50

EDM

3.56

50% of the chances50%

The board read BUF 4, EDM 3. The chances read BUF 3.5, EDM 3.6.

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

Luck check

BUF

+0.5

goals above expected

BUF3.50 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

EDM3.56 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

P1 19:01BUFJ. DoanPP1–0
P2 11:03BUFT. Thompson2–0
P2 11:59BUFJ. DoanPP3–0
P3 00:10EDMC. McDavid3–1
P3 01:56EDMV. Podkolzin3–2
P3 19:58EDMC. McDavidPP3–3
OT 00:33BUFA. Tuch4–3

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

36 shots

Final

80 shots

EDM

44 shots

BUF EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFEDM

2 / 5

1.37 xG

High danger

0 / 4

0.88 xG

2 / 13

1.62 xG

Medium

3 / 18

1.97 xG

0 / 35

0.51 xG

Low

0 / 36

0.71 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

C. Ellis

+3.6

BUF · 6/6

A. Lyon

+0.6

BUF · 21/24

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres edge the Oilers 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 7–8

19:01BUFJ. Doanpower play(R. Dahlin, T. Thompson)1–0

2ndshots 14–10

11:03BUFT. Thompson2–0
11:59BUFJ. Doanpower play(T. Thompson, R. Dahlin)3–0

3rdshots 6–12

00:10EDMC. McDavid(M. Ekholm)3–1
01:56EDMV. Podkolzin(L. Draisaitl, T. Emberson)3–2
19:58EDMC. McDavidpower play(R. Nugent-Hopkins, E. Bouchard)3–3

OTshots 1–0

00:33BUFA. Tuch(R. McLeod, R. Dahlin)4–3

score reads BUF–EDM

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.50

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.024

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

47.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.50Expected goals3.56

EDM 50% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal30

5High-danger chances4

53All attempts (Corsi)58

Adjusted for score: BUF 44% · EDM 56%

Faceoffs · EDM won63%off63%neu59%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF2 / 5 · 1.37 xG

EDM0 / 4 · 0.88 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF2 / 13 · 1.62 xG

EDM3 / 18 · 1.97 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF0 / 35 · 0.51 xG

EDM0 / 36 · 0.71 xG

EDM went 3-for-18 from medium danger on 1.97 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

4 G · 3.50 xG · +0.5

EDM

3 G · 3.56 xG · -0.6

012345

BUF finished +0.5 against expected, EDM -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

WRIST1/19

SLAP0/7

SNAP1/3

TIP IN1/3

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

BETWEEN LEGS1/1

OTHER0/17

EDM

WRIST2/22

SLAP0/9

SNAP1/5

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/0

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

OTHER0/14

BUF

EDM

Off the rush

4 G on 25

3.14 xG

1 G on 26

2.42 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

2 G on 5

0.70 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-19, EDM 2-for-22. BUF scored 4 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

A. Lyon

BUF · 21/24 · .875

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium3/182.0-1.0

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

C. Ellis

BUF · 6/6 · 1.000

+3.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium3/182.0-1.0

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

S. Skinner

EDM · 24/28 · .857

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.4-0.6

Medium2/131.6-0.4

Low0/350.5+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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

36 shots

Final

80 shots

EDM

44 shots

BUF EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, EDM 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. Dahlin

#26 · D · BUF

0 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 22:58 on ice

T. Thompson

#72 · C · BUF

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:11 on ice · +1

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 25:51 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:43 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 has the Oilers at 54% win probability, projecting a 2.5–2.7 game—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Buffalo and Edmonton have nearly identical 5v5 profiles. The Sabres' 50.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi roughly track the Oilers' 52.0% and 50.0%, leaving a performance margin so thin that luck becomes decisive. Buffalo has squeezed that luck harder: a 1.020 PDO (running hot), while Edmonton sits at 0.982 (running cold). Regression cuts both ways—expect the Sabres to cool, the Oilers to warm, narrowing an already razor-thin gap.

The Oilers hold a practical edge: three days' rest versus zero. Buffalo is coming off back-to-back nights; Edmonton is not. That advantage matters when neither team has been convincingly sharper than the other.

The matchup lives on two players. Jason Zucker has generated 1.07 xG per 60 at even strength and converted at 15.1%—both well above average—accounting for 14 goals and 6 hard chances. Connor McDavid, despite lower volume (0.92 xG/60), has accumulated 25 goals and 33 assists, a ratio that reflects his playmaking volume offsetting his shot volume. McDavid is the Oilers' engine; Zucker is Buffalo's most dangerous finisher. How those two matchups distribute the ice will shape the game.

Josh Doan, shooting 11.5%, provides Buffalo secondary scoring efficiency that doesn't show up in xG (1.01 per 60). Zach Hyman, at 1.23 xG per 60, is Edmonton's most dangerous complement to McDavid—he's generating more expected chances than anyone on the ice.

Buffalo's defensive weakness centers on Jack Quinn. Edmonton's is Jake Walman. Neither team has generated meaningful rebound or hard-chance goal rates (both sitting at 0%), meaning five-on-five conversion depends almost entirely on base rates. Expect the Oilers' edge to hold, though not comfortably.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 54%

54%

EDM

Model favorite

46%

54%

BUF50EDM

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

50.0%52.0%

49.0%50.0%

2.552.64

2.552.47

2.352.13

1.902.29

1.0200.982

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.982) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 0–10

BUF

5-5-0

+1 GD · 3d rest

EDM

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.982

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Sabres have 3 more days of rest.

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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page