Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · PIT at OTT

Senators shut out the Penguins, 4-0

The verdict · earned

The Senators earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

PIT 0 · OTT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:51 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 scoreboard suggests a blowout, but Pittsburgh's underlying numbers suggest something closer. The Penguins generated 2.97 expected goals—competitive against Ottawa's 4.01—but L. Ullmark saved 3.0 above expected, turning a potentially tight game into a rout.

The Senators' control was real: 4.01 xG on 0.079 xG per shot versus Pittsburgh's 0.053. Shot attempts nearly split (26–25 for Ottawa), but high-danger chances didn't: 8–4, Ottawa. The quality gap was the real dominance.

Ottawa's execution sealed it. They scored four goals on 24 rush attempts. Pittsburgh created four rebound opportunities and converted zero. The difference between a 4-0 loss and a 1-goal game was Ottawa's pace play and Ullmark's save advantage.

A. Silovs finished with 22 saves on 26 shots (0.846 SV%).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 18
PIT
0
OTT
4

Senators shut out the Penguins, 4-0

Chances 3.0 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
2.97
OTT
4.01
43% of the chances57%

The board read PIT 0, OTT 4. The chances read PIT 3.0, OTT 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−0.0
goals above expected
OTT4.01 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT2.97 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 3.0 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 02:16OTTB. TkachukPP0–1
  2. P2 01:34OTTD. Perron0–2
  3. P2 04:50OTTC. Giroux0–3
  4. P3 13:55OTTB. Tkachuk0–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
43 shots
0
Final
81 shots
OTT
38 shots
4
PIT attackOTT attack
PIT OTT Goal
43
shots · 0 in
38
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITOTT
0 / 4
0.89 xG
High danger
2 / 8
2.24 xG
0 / 14
1.55 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.38 xG
0 / 38
0.52 xG
Low
1 / 30
0.39 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
L. Ullmark
+3.0
OTT · 25/25
C
A. Silovs
+0.0
PIT · 22/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators shut out the Penguins, 4-0

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 8–7
  1. 02:16OTTB. Tkachukpower play(D. Batherson, T. Stützle)0–1
2ndshots 4–12
  1. 01:34OTTD. Perron(J. Spence, D. Batherson)0–2
  2. 04:50OTTC. Giroux(M. Amadio, R. Greig)0–3
3rdshots 13–7
  1. 13:55OTTB. Tkachuk(F. Zetterlund, N. Jensen)0–4

score reads PIT–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.01
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.078
OTT 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

2.97Expected goals4.01
OTT 57% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal26
4High-danger chances8
56All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: PIT 59% · OTT 42%
Faceoffs · OTT won47%off47%neu71%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT0 / 4 · 0.89 xG
OTT2 / 8 · 2.24 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT0 / 14 · 1.55 xG
OTT1 / 13 · 1.38 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT0 / 38 · 0.52 xG
OTT1 / 30 · 0.39 xG

PIT went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.55 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
0 G · 2.97 xG · -3.0
OTT
4 G · 4.01 xG · -0.0
012345

PIT finished -3.0 against expected, OTT -0.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST0/17
TIP IN0/11
SNAP0/6
BACKHAND0/2
SLAP0/2
WRAP AROUND0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/13
OTT
WRIST3/24
TIP IN0/1
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND0/5
SLAP0/5
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/13
PIT
OTT
Off the rush
0 G on 28
2.23 xG
4 G on 24
2.89 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.20 xG
0 G on 4
0.59 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 0-for-17, OTT 3-for-24. OTT 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. Silovs
PIT · 22/26 · .846
+0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.2+0.2
Medium1/131.4+0.4
Low1/300.4-0.6

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

L. Ullmark
OTT · 25/25 · 1.000
+3.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium0/141.6+1.6
Low0/380.5+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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
43 shots
0
Final
81 shots
OTT
38 shots
4
PIT attackOTT attack
PIT OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, OTT 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
D. Batherson
#19 · R · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:36 on ice · +1
B. Tkachuk
#7 · L · OTT
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 17:02 on ice · +1
T. Stützle
#18 · C · OTT
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:26 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 18
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:50 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 2.4–2.7 goal Pittsburgh loss to Ottawa, favoring the Senators at 56% win probability—a statistical lean backed by concrete possession edges.

Ottawa controls the volume of chances. The Senators generate 56.0% of 5v5 expected goals compared to Pittsburgh's 51.0%, a four-point gap that reflects sustained offensive pressure. The territorial tilt deepens in Corsi: Ottawa drives 53.0% of unblocked shot attempts to Pittsburgh's 50.0%, suggesting the Penguins will spend the night defending the perimeter.

The only asterisk favors Pittsburgh. The Penguins' PDO sits at 1.012, above the even mark, while Ottawa's 0.993 runs cold. Luck normalizes; regression cuts both ways.

For Pittsburgh, the challenge centers on Filip Hallander's absence. Hallander was generating 1.28 expected goals per 60 minutes but is out for evaluation following his AHL recall. This removes a driver of offensive pace. Rickard Rakell assumes primary responsibility. At 1.01 xG/60 with 13 goals and a 12.1% shooting rate, Rakell must generate without Hallander's volume. He has three high-danger goals.

Ottawa counters with Brady Tkachuk and Dylan Cozens. Tkachuk operates at 1.19 xG/60, producing 11 goals and 20 assists with a 7.5% shot conversion—sustainable and efficient. Cozens matches Rakell's production floor at 1.00 xG/60 but sits at 13 goals on 9.5% shooting, a mark that leaves room for regression. Tkachuk's two high-danger goals suggest a player finishing at or above true talent.

Both teams present the same scoring inefficiency: zero high-danger and zero rebound goals. This is unlikely to hold. Whichever team normalizes its conversion first gains a margin.

Pittsburgh's structural vulnerability emerges on the back end. Caleb Jones carries the defensive burden. Ottawa's soft spot is Nick Jensen. The Senators' 53.0% Corsi advantage suggests these weak links will see sustained offensive traffic.

The model's lean is rational. Ottawa's possession and chance advantage compound; Pittsburgh enters depleted and trailing in territory. The Penguins' PDO masks a narrower true talent gap, and that gap closes faster without Hallander.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 56%
56%
OTT
Model favorite
44%
56%
PIT50OTT

OTT by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.4–2.7 OTT; 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
PIT← edge
edge →OTT
51.0%56.0%
50.0%53.0%
2.662.66
2.552.12
2.452.18
2.121.99
1.0120.993

OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.993) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 0–10
PIT
3-3-4
-7 GD · 1d rest
OTT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
back-to-back.773 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.

OTT
Expected in goal
—
no game on file

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
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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next