Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
← Tue, Dec 23 · the slate
Breakdown · BUF at OTT

Sabres steal one from the Senators against the run of play

Final / OTTue, Dec 23
BUFBuffalo Sabres3OTTOttawa Senators2
The verdict · stolen

The Sabres stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.88–3.84 and won anyway.

BUF 3 · OTT 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:45 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 won 3–2 in overtime against all evidence. The Senators controlled 67% of expected goals (3.84–1.88) and 51% of shot attempts (26–25), generating five high-danger chances to Buffalo's one. This was a heist.

The Sabres generated higher-quality looks than their shot volume suggested, but the Senators' dominance was complete. Buffalo's victory turned on one moment: Bowen Byram's snap shot from the high slot at 00:31 of overtime.

A. Lyon was the reason this worked. The Buffalo goaltender made 24 saves on 26 shots (0.923 SV%) with +1.84 goals above expected, stopping all five high-danger chances he faced. L. Ullmark finished –1.12 on expected: 22 saves on 25 shots (0.880 SV%) despite facing less work. The Senators had quality—0.061 xG per shot versus Buffalo's 0.046—but couldn't convert it. Ottawa scored twice off 32 rush chances; Buffalo converted three times in 23 attempts, with one of those conversions deciding the game in overtime.

The difference wasn't intensity or territory. It was execution against profligacy.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 23
BUF
3
OTT
2

Sabres steal one from the Senators against the run of play

Chances 1.9 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
1.88
OTT
3.84
33% of the chances67%

The board read BUF 3, OTT 2. The chances read BUF 1.9, OTT 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+1.1
goals above expected
BUF1.88 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.84 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators 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 15:22BUFB. Byram1–0
  2. P1 17:13OTTR. Greig1–1
  3. P2 06:11BUFN. Ostlund2–1
  4. P2 09:27OTTT. StützlePP2–2
  5. OT 00:31BUFB. Byram3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
32 shots
3
Final
77 shots
OTT
45 shots
2
BUF attackOTT attack
BUF OTT Goal
32
shots · 3 in
45
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFOTT
0 / 1
0.27 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.22 xG
3 / 10
1.04 xG
Medium
2 / 18
2.01 xG
0 / 30
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.60 xG

The Senators went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Lyon
+1.8
BUF · 24/26
D-
L. Ullmark
−1.1
OTT · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres steal one from the Senators 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 12–11
  1. 15:22BUFB. Byram(J. Greenway, J. Dunne)1–0
  2. 17:13OTTR. Greig(C. Giroux)1–1
2ndshots 8–8
  1. 06:11BUFN. Ostlund(B. Byram, A. Tuch)2–1
  2. 09:27OTTT. Stützlepower play(D. Batherson, D. Cozens)2–2
3rdshots 4–7no goals
    OTshots 1–0
    1. 00:31BUFB. Byram(R. McLeod, M. Samuelsson)3–2

    score reads BUF–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    1.88
    BUF chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.041
    BUF puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    39.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.88Expected goals3.84
    OTT 67% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal26
    1High-danger chances5
    41All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: BUF 39% · OTT 61%
    Faceoffs · OTT won57%off68%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    BUF0 / 1 · 0.27 xG
    OTT0 / 5 · 1.22 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    BUF3 / 10 · 1.04 xG
    OTT2 / 18 · 2.01 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    BUF0 / 30 · 0.56 xG
    OTT0 / 40 · 0.60 xG

    BUF went 3-for-10 from medium danger on 1.04 expected goals — 2.0 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    BUF
    3 G · 1.88 xG · +1.1
    OTT
    2 G · 3.84 xG · -1.8
    012345

    BUF finished +1.1 against expected, OTT -1.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    BUF
    WRIST0/19
    SNAP1/3
    TIP IN2/5
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/9
    OTT
    WRIST1/29
    SNAP0/7
    TIP IN0/2
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND1/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/18
    BUF
    OTT
    Off the rush
    3 G on 23
    1.56 xG
    2 G on 32
    3.15 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.14 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.54 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 0-for-19, OTT 1-for-29. 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 · 24/26 · .923
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium2/182.0+0.0
    Low0/400.6+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

    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 22/25 · .880
    -1.1
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.3+0.3
    Medium3/101.0-2.0
    Low0/300.6+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

    77 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    BUF
    32 shots
    3
    Final
    77 shots
    OTT
    45 shots
    2
    BUF attackOTT attack
    BUF OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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
    B. Byram
    #4 · D · BUF
    2 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:18 on ice · +3
    M. Samuelsson
    #23 · D · BUF
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 26:39 on ice
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 21:41 on ice · -2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Dec 23
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:44 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 BUF 2.3 - 2.7 OTT game with the Senators at 57% win probability.

    Ottawa's edge runs through the underlying numbers. The Senators own 56.0% of 5v5 expected goals — a six-point gap over Buffalo's 50.0%. That advantage extends to Corsi, where Ottawa drives 53.0% of shot attempts, establishing territorial control throughout the game.

    Buffalo's risk is regression. The Sabres are running at 1.020 PDO — unsustainably hot — while Ottawa sits at 0.993, suggesting room for variance to cut the other way. The closer the Sabres' luck moves toward average, the wider Ottawa's underlying advantage becomes.

    Goaltending adds complexity. Both L. Ullmark and U. Luukkonen are on back-to-backs, creating uncertainty about who actually takes the ice or whether fatigue becomes a factor for either starter.

    The offensive threats shape the tactical approach. Jason Zucker carries 1.07 expected goals per 60 minutes for Buffalo, backed by 14 goals and 14 assists; his 15.1% shooting rate has buoyed six high-danger chances into the scoresheet. Josh Doan offers another dimension at 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists, though his 11.5% shooting is more sustainable.

    Ottawa counters with Brady Tkachuk, who leads at 1.19 xG/60 — the highest individual volume in this matchup — while managing just 11 goals and 20 assists. His 7.5% shooting rate signals he's generating chances the scoresheet hasn't yet validated. Dylan Cozens operates at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists, converting at 9.5%.

    Buffalo's defensive weak link is Jack Quinn. Ottawa's is Nick Jensen. Neither team generates meaningful offense from high-danger situations — both at 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate — which actually favors the team defending better underlying chances.

    This is a game where the numbers point decisively in one direction, but regression and fatigue introduce enough noise to respect Buffalo's floor. The Senators are the lean.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 57%
    57%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    BUF50OTT

    OTT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.3–2.7 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
    BUF← edge
    edge →OTT
    50.0%56.0%
    49.0%53.0%
    2.552.66
    2.552.12
    2.352.18
    1.901.99
    1.0200.993

    OTT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.993) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    BUF
    7-3-0
    +4 GD · 1d rest
    OTT
    6-4-0
    +12 GD · 1d rest
    1.020
    BUF 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 50.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • L. Ullmark is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • 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
    U. Luukkonen
    back-to-back.963 last start
    Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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
    L. Ullmark
    back-to-back.900 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
    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

    Back to the front page