Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · BUF at SEA

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres edge the Kraken

FinalSun, Dec 14

The verdict · coin flip

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

BUF 3 · SEA 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:28 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 Sabres beat the Kraken 3-1 in a game where shot volume favored Seattle but goaltending and chance quality decided it. The Kraken held 51% of shot attempts (24–23), yet produced little when it mattered most: zero high-danger chances converted, with only 3 such opportunities compared to Buffalo's 6.

A. Lyon was the margin. The Buffalo goalie stopped 23 of 24 shots (0.958 SV%) and saved 2.91 goals above expected, blanking the Kraken on all six high-danger attempts. J. Daccord made 20 of 22 saves (0.909 SV%) but faced harder finish — the Sabres buried 3 goals on 28 rush chances, a lethal pace that overcame his above-expected performance (+1.79).

Expected goals painted Seattle's frustration: the Kraken generated 3.91 xG to Buffalo's 3.79, yet trailed 3-1. Variance told the real story — Seattle underperformed their xG by 2.91 goals, Buffalo underperformed theirs by 0.79, meaning the Sabres were vastly more efficient with inferior underlying play.

The turning point arrived at 19:14 of the third period: Zach Benson's wrist shot from the top of the circles put Buffalo up for good.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 14

BUF

SEA

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres edge the Kraken

Chances 3.8 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

3.79

SEA

3.91

49% of the chances51%

The board read BUF 3, SEA 1. The chances read BUF 3.8, SEA 3.9.

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

Luck check

BUF

−0.8

goals above expected

BUF3.79 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

SEA3.91 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Kraken left 2.9 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 17:09BUFN. Ostlund1–0
P2 10:08BUFT. Thompson2–0
P2 12:24SEAC. StephensonPP2–1
P3 19:14BUFZ. BensonEN3–1

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

40 shots

Final

87 shots

SEA

47 shots

BUF SEA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFSEA

2 / 3

1.26 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.57 xG

0 / 16

1.90 xG

Medium

1 / 14

1.60 xG

1 / 35

0.63 xG

Low

0 / 42

0.73 xG

The Kraken went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

A. Lyon

+2.9

BUF · 23/24

J. Daccord

+1.8

SEA · 20/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres edge the Kraken

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 9–3

17:09BUFN. Ostlund(J. Norris, A. Tuch)1–0

2ndshots 7–11

10:08BUFT. Thompson(P. Krebs, A. Tuch)2–0
12:24SEAC. Stephensonpower play(V. Dunn, J. Eberle)2–1

3rdshots 7–10

19:14BUFZ. Bensonempty net(J. Quinn, R. McLeod)3–1

score reads BUF–SEA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.79

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.8

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.039

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

46.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.79Expected goals3.91

SEA 51% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal24

3High-danger chances6

54All attempts (Corsi)62

Adjusted for score: BUF 43% · SEA 57%

Faceoffs · SEA won65%off55%neu31%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF2 / 3 · 1.26 xG

SEA0 / 6 · 1.57 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF0 / 16 · 1.90 xG

SEA1 / 14 · 1.60 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF1 / 35 · 0.63 xG

SEA0 / 42 · 0.73 xG

BUF went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.90 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

3 G · 3.79 xG · -0.8

SEA

1 G · 3.91 xG · -2.9

012345

BUF finished -0.8 against expected, SEA -2.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

WRIST3/23

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/4

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND0/2

BAT0/1

OTHER0/14

SEA

WRIST1/30

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/5

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND0/4

BAT0/0

OTHER0/15

BUF

SEA

Off the rush

3 G on 28

2.86 xG

1 G on 31

2.59 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.46 xG

0 G on 5

0.85 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 3-for-23, SEA 1-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 · 23/24 · .958

+2.9

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.6+1.6

Medium1/141.6+0.6

Low0/420.7+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

J. Daccord

SEA · 20/22 · .909

+1.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/31.3-0.7

Medium0/161.9+1.9

Low1/350.6-0.4

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

40 shots

Final

87 shots

SEA

47 shots

BUF SEA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

A. Tuch

#89 · R · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:07 on ice · +2

V. Dunn

#29 · D · SEA

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:15 on ice · -2

T. Thompson

#72 · C · BUF

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 20:35 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Dec 14

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:25 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 2.5–2.5 game with Buffalo at 51% win probability—a genuine pick'em.

Buffalo owns the underlying play. The Sabres' 5v5 xG sits at 50.0% against Seattle's 46.0%, translating to superior shot quality. Corsi tells the same story: Buffalo's 49.0% reflects consistent territorial control, the kind of edge that compounds through a full game.

Recent form doesn't favor either team. Seattle is -14 on goal differential over their last 10 games—a steep slide. Buffalo sits at -6 over the same stretch, making them the comparatively stable option.

Here's where Buffalo's advantage weakens: the Sabres are running hot. Their season PDO of 1.020 means luck is currently working in their favor. Regression is inevitable. Seattle's 1.011 PDO hovers closer to what sticks, so if the game tightens in the third, that advantage dissolves.

Watch P. Grubauer. On a back-to-back, Seattle may start a backup or lean on a tired starter—a weakness Buffalo's top line should exploit.

Players to Watch

Jason Zucker drives Buffalo's edge: 1.07 xG/60, 14 goals, 14 assists, 6 hard-damage goals, and 15.1% shooting. Josh Doan (15 goals, 18 assists, 1.01 xG/60) operates as the secondary option with 2 hard-damage goals and 11.5% shooting.

Shane Wright anchors Seattle with 0.77 xG/60, 8 goals, 10 assists, and 4 hard-damage goals. Berkly Catton (6 goals, 8 assists, 0.68 xG/60) chips in with 5 hard-damage goals and 8.8% shooting but lacks Zucker's consistency.

Neither team has found second-chance efficiency—both register 0% on hard-damage and rebound goals. Buffalo's Jack Quinn and Seattle's Chandler Stephenson are the defensive weak links.

Buffalo should control play. Whether territorial advantage becomes goals before regression catches up is the real question. This is a coin flip—one where the team weathering recent struggles better gets the narrow edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 51%

51%

BUF

Model favorite

51%

49%

BUF50SEA

BUF by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.5 SEA; 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 →SEA

50.0%46.0%

49.0%45.0%

2.552.13

2.552.51

2.351.87

1.901.95

1.0201.011

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.011) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

5-5-0

-6 GD · 2d rest

SEA

3-6-1

-14 GD · 1d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.011

SEA 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 46.0%.
The Sabres drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

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 46.0%.
The Sabres drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
P. Grubauer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Kraken are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
The Sabres are underwater at -6 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

A. Lyon

2 days rest.938 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SEA

Expected in goal

P. Grubauer

back-to-back.903 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page