Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Thu, Dec 11 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at PIT

J. Fowler stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Penguins

FinalThu, Dec 11
MTLMontreal Canadiens4PITPittsburgh Penguins2
The verdict · stolen

The Canadiens stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.64–5.07 and won anyway.

MTL 4 · PIT 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:58 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 generated 58% of expected goals and still lost. J. Fowler's 0.947 save percentage—3.07 goals above expectation—is why Montreal stole this one.

Pittsburgh owned the run of play: 57% of shot attempts, 38 to 29 on goal. The xG split tells the real story: Penguins 5.07, Canadiens 3.64. Any league where xG matters, Pittsburgh wins decisively. Here, J. Fowler didn't.

For Montreal, the scoring came from unexpected places. They managed just 0 for 7 on high-danger chances. Pittsburgh couldn't convert either—T. Jarry saved all 7 high-danger chances, and 10 rebound opportunities went nowhere. B. Rust scored once (1G, 1A in 25:35) and drove play for the Penguins. For Montreal, L. Hutson (2A, 22:15) and J. Slafkovský (2A, 18:06) orchestrated the offense.

Pittsburgh underperformed its xG by 3.07 goals. That margin sat entirely in Fowler's glove. When a goaltender saves 3.1 goals above expectation in a two-goal loss, you're watching theft in real time.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 11
MTL
4
PIT
2

J. Fowler stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Penguins

Chances 3.6 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.64
PIT
5.07
42% of the chances58%

The board read MTL 4, PIT 2. The chances read MTL 3.6, PIT 5.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
+0.4
goals above expected
MTL3.64 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT5.07 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 3.1 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 02:54MTLA. Texier1–0
  2. P2 04:37MTLB. Gallagher2–0
  3. P2 10:18MTLC. CaufieldPP3–0
  4. P3 00:44PITB. Rust3–1
  5. P3 00:59MTLO. Kapanen4–1
  6. P3 15:07PITE. KarlssonPP4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
40 shots
4
Final
94 shots
PIT
54 shots
2
MTL attackPIT attack
MTL PIT Goal
40
shots · 4 in
54
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLPIT
0 / 7
1.70 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.73 xG
1 / 12
1.17 xG
Medium
1 / 25
2.79 xG
3 / 41
0.77 xG
Low
0 / 49
0.55 xG

High-danger looks: MTL 0 of 7, PIT 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Fowler
+3.1
MTL · 36/38
D
T. Jarry
−0.4
PIT · 25/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Fowler stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Penguins

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 9–4
  1. 02:54MTLA. Texier1–0
2ndshots 11–16
  1. 04:37MTLB. Gallagher(L. Hutson, J. Slafkovský)2–0
  2. 10:18MTLC. Caufieldpower play(N. Suzuki, L. Hutson)3–0
3rdshots 9–18
  1. 00:44PITB. Rust(S. Crosby, T. Novak)3–1
  2. 00:59MTLO. Kapanen(J. Slafkovský, I. Demidov)4–1
  3. 15:07PITE. Karlssonpower play(K. Letang, B. Rust)4–2

score reads MTL–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.64
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.042
MTL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
42.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.64Expected goals5.07
PIT 58% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal38
7High-danger chances7
60All attempts (Corsi)81
Adjusted for score: MTL 37% · PIT 64%
Faceoffs · PIT won63%off50%neu59%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL0 / 7 · 1.70 xG
PIT1 / 7 · 1.73 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL1 / 12 · 1.17 xG
PIT1 / 25 · 2.79 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL3 / 41 · 0.77 xG
PIT0 / 49 · 0.55 xG

MTL went 3-for-41 from low danger on 0.77 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
4 G · 3.64 xG · +0.4
PIT
2 G · 5.07 xG · -3.1
0123456

MTL finished +0.4 against expected, PIT -3.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST3/29
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/2
SNAP1/1
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/20
PIT
WRIST1/38
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/6
SNAP1/3
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/27
MTL
PIT
Off the rush
4 G on 31
3.01 xG
1 G on 28
3.04 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.30 xG
0 G on 10
1.44 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 3-for-29, PIT 1-for-38. MTL 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
J. Fowler
MTL · 36/38 · .947
+3.1
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.7+0.7
Medium1/252.8+1.8
Low0/490.6+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

T. Jarry
PIT · 25/29 · .862
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.7+1.7
Medium1/121.2+0.2
Low3/410.8-2.2

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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
40 shots
4
Final
94 shots
PIT
54 shots
2
MTL attackPIT attack
MTL PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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
B. Rust
#17 · R · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 25:35 on ice
L. Hutson
#48 · D · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:15 on ice · +3
J. Slafkovský
#20 · L · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 18:06 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:57 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

Pittsburgh projects as a slight favorite at 55% win probability, with models estimating 2.5–2.8 goals for Montreal. This is essentially a pick'em.

The Penguins own the underlying play. Pittsburgh's 51.0% 5v5 expected goals margin dwarfs Montreal's 48.0%, though both teams' Corsi percentages—50.0% and 49.0% respectively—suggest similar shot-volume control. One team is manufacturing higher-quality chances.

Montreal runs hot, which invites regression. The Canadiens' 1.018 PDO signals outperformance; Pittsburgh's 1.012 sits closer to sustainable. Montreal's -9 goal differential over their last 10 games exposes the fragility—they've been treading water.

Both goaltenders enter back-to-back games. A. Silovs and S. Montembeault could see backup duty, or face sloppy starts if deployed. Monitor the pregame lineup announcements for fatigue.

Cole Caufield remains Montreal's offensive anchor. At 0.97 xG/60 with 33 goals and a 20.0% shooting rate, he's operating at elite volume and conversion simultaneously. Oliver Kapanen (0.83 xG/60, 19 goals) delivers secondary scoring at a 17.8% clip. Montreal punishes discipline lapses; Pittsburgh cannot afford penalties.

Pittsburgh's Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals) provides reliable depth, but Filip Hallander is injured and unavailable. Without his 1.28 xG/60, Pittsburgh's secondary scoring dries up.

Montreal's Mike Matheson represents a defensive liability; Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones mirrors the risk. Whoever converts their defensive advantage more cleanly could tip this close game.

This is coin-flip territory. Expect neither team to pull decisively away.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 55%
55%
PIT
Model favorite
45%
55%
MTL50PIT

PIT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.5–2.8 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
MTL← edge
edge →PIT
48.0%51.0%
49.0%50.0%
2.412.66
2.622.55
2.242.45
1.962.12
1.0181.012

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 1.012) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MTL
5-5-0
-9 GD · 1d rest
PIT
5-2-3
-1 GD · 1d rest
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • A. Silovs is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • S. Montembeault is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Canadiens are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
Expected in goal
S. Montembeault
back-to-back.769 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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.

PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
back-to-back.929 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.

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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% 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

Back to the front page