Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
Breakdown · BUF at VAN

Sabres steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Sabres stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.76–3.82 and won anyway.

BUF 3 · VAN 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:04 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

Buffalo won 3-2 despite controlling just 1.76 expected goals to Vancouver's 3.82. The Canucks' 68% xG advantage evaporated against A. Lyon's netminding.

Lyon stopped 30 of 32 shots (0.938 SV%) and overperformed his xG by 1.82 goals. T. Demko allowed 3 of 15 (0.800 SV%) and underperformed by 1.24—a cavernous gap for a goalie facing only 15 shots. The Canucks wasted their dominance: 32 shot attempts to Buffalo's 15, three high-danger chances to two. They underperformed their xG by 1.82 goals. Buffalo, meanwhile, scored two from low-danger spots—the kind that exposes goaltending weakness.

The Canucks created three rebound opportunities but converted zero, hemming Buffalo in without finishing. The Sabres were surgical in transition: three goals on twenty rush chances, a conversion rate that punished Vancouver's aggressive up-ice press. Zach Benson's snap shot from the high slot at 14:46 of the second period proved decisive.

R. Dahlin led Buffalo with 1G and 1A in 24:51. T. Thompson added 1G and 1A in 19:06. Q. Hughes registered 1A in 30:03 for Vancouver, the only Canuck to consistently generate danger against Lyon.

This is what 68% xG performance looks like when goaltending variance flips the script: a heist.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 11
BUF
3
VAN
2

Sabres steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

Chances 1.8 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
1.76
VAN
3.82
31% of the chances69%

The board read BUF 3, VAN 2. The chances read BUF 1.8, VAN 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+1.2
goals above expected
BUF1.76 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN3.82 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 1.8 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 07:36BUFR. Dahlin1–0
  2. P1 19:49VANK. SherwoodPP1–1
  3. P2 06:15VANM. Sasson1–2
  4. P2 09:12BUFT. Thompson2–2
  5. P2 14:46BUFZ. BensonPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
28 shots
3
Final
84 shots
VAN
56 shots
2
BUF attackVAN attack
BUF VAN Goal
28
shots · 3 in
56
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFVAN
0 / 2
0.44 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.65 xG
1 / 8
0.80 xG
Medium
2 / 18
2.19 xG
2 / 27
0.52 xG
Low
0 / 63
0.98 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Lyon
+1.8
BUF · 30/32
D-
T. Demko
−1.2
VAN · 12/15
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

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 7–12
  1. 07:36BUFR. Dahlin(R. McLeod, J. Quinn)1–0
  2. 19:49VANK. Sherwoodpower play(C. Garland, Q. Hughes)1–1
2ndshots 6–8
  1. 06:15VANM. Sasson(J. DeBrusk, E. Pettersson)1–2
  2. 09:12BUFT. Thompson(R. Dahlin)2–2
  3. 14:46BUFZ. Bensonpower play(J. Doan, T. Thompson)3–2
3rdshots 2–12no goals

    score reads BUF–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    1.76
    BUF chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.057
    BUF puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    30.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.76Expected goals3.82
    VAN 69% of the chance quality
    15Shots on goal32
    2High-danger chances3
    37All attempts (Corsi)84
    Adjusted for score: BUF 29% · VAN 71%
    Faceoffs · VAN won62%off75%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    BUF0 / 2 · 0.44 xG
    VAN0 / 3 · 0.65 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    BUF1 / 8 · 0.80 xG
    VAN2 / 18 · 2.19 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    BUF2 / 27 · 0.52 xG
    VAN0 / 63 · 0.98 xG

    BUF went 2-for-27 from low danger on 0.52 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    BUF
    3 G · 1.76 xG · +1.2
    VAN
    2 G · 3.82 xG · -1.8
    012345

    BUF finished +1.2 against expected, VAN -1.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    BUF
    WRIST1/9
    SNAP1/14
    SLAP1/1
    TIP IN0/2
    BACKHAND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/9
    VAN
    WRIST0/30
    SNAP1/5
    SLAP0/9
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND1/4
    DEFLECTED0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/28
    BUF
    VAN
    Off the rush
    3 G on 20
    1.30 xG
    1 G on 33
    2.67 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.27 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.42 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-9, VAN 0-for-30. 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
    A. Lyon
    BUF · 30/32 · .938
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium2/182.2+0.2
    Low0/631.0+1.0

    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. Demko
    VAN · 12/15 · .800
    -1.2
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium1/80.8-0.2
    Low2/270.5-1.5

    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

    84 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    BUF
    28 shots
    3
    Final
    84 shots
    VAN
    56 shots
    2
    BUF attackVAN attack
    BUF VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, VAN 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
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:51 on ice · +2
    T. Thompson
    #72 · C · BUF
    1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:06 on ice · +1
    Q. Hughes
    #43 · D · VAN
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 30:03 on ice · -1
    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, 8:03 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

    The model projects a 2.7-2.5 Buffalo edge with the Sabres at 53% win probability — as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Buffalo owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Sabres' 50.0% expected goals share tops the Canucks' 44.0%, and their 49.0% Corsi% reinforces the edge. This is structural control.

    Yet Vancouver's 0.974 PDO signals regression incoming — they're running cold and due for positive correction. Buffalo's 1.020 PDO cuts the other way, which means some of their results are unsustainable. When PDO normalizes for both teams, the gap narrows.

    The Sabres' edge leans on depth. Jason Zucker leads at 1.07 expected goals per 60 minutes, with 14 goals and 14 assists across 6 high-danger opportunities and a 15.1% shooting rate. Josh Doan sits at 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals on an 11.5% rate and 18 assists but only 2 high-danger goals — his scoring outruns the underlying play.

    Vancouver is thinner. Filip Chytil carries 1.03 xG/60 but has only 3 goals and no assists on 1 high-danger chance with a 15.0% rate. Drew O'Connor, at 0.85 xG/60 with 13 goals and 11 assists, has converted 3 high-danger opportunities at 11.8% — more sustainable but lower volume. Neither generates offense at Buffalo's pace.

    The model favors Buffalo. Everything else suggests a coin flip.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    BUF 53%
    53%
    BUF
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    BUF50VAN

    BUF by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.7–2.5 VAN; 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 →VAN
    50.0%44.0%
    49.0%46.0%
    2.552.22
    2.552.81
    2.351.60
    1.902.56
    1.0200.974

    BUF holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.974) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    BUF
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    VAN
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.020
    BUF PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    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
    VAN
    Filip Chytil3G 0A
    1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Drew O'Connor13G 11A
    0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next