Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · PIT at CHI

Penguins pull away from the Blackhawks

FinalSun, Dec 28

PITPittsburgh Penguins7 CHIChicago Blackhawks3

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 7 · CHI 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:12 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

Pittsburgh's 7–3 scoreline masked a much tighter underlying contest. Expected goals split 3.22–3.55 (48–52), barely registering as a skill edge—yet the final tally diverged significantly. The Penguins overperformed their expected goals by 3.45, the gap between what the models predicted and what the scoreboard showed.

Quality trumped volume. Pittsburgh generated 0.096 expected goals per shot; Chicago managed 0.050. That differential in shot value explains the blowout. A. Silovs (PIT) recorded 21 saves on 24 shots (0.875 SV%), while Chicago's goaltending faltered. S. Knight stopped 5 of 9 attempts (0.556 SV%), nearly 2.7 goals below expected. A. Soderblom fared marginally better at 0.800 on 15 shots.

Shot attempts split evenly at 24–24. High-danger chances differed sharply: Pittsburgh 9, Chicago 4. Both teams converted rush chances—Chicago 2 on 30 opportunities, Pittsburgh 6 on 23—but precision at close range proved decisive.

Tyler Bertuzzi's wrist shot from a sharp angle (P3, 19:59) marked the turning point, one of several moments where Pittsburgh's finishing punished Chicago's defensive lapses.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 28

PIT

CHI

Penguins pull away from the Blackhawks

Chances 3.5 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Penguins took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

PIT

3.55

CHI

3.22

53% of the chances48%

The board read PIT 7, CHI 3. The chances read PIT 3.5, CHI 3.2.

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

Luck check

PIT

+3.5

goals above expected

PIT3.55 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI3.22 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Penguins scored 3.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 01:38PITA. Mantha1–0
P1 07:19PITB. Rust2–0
P1 08:20PITJ. Brazeau3–0
P1 12:03PITB. Rust4–0
P2 10:50CHIN. Foligno4–1
P2 12:20PITJ. BrazeauPP5–1
P2 13:17PITJ. Brazeau6–1

+3 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

PIT

33 shots

Final

79 shots

CHI

46 shots

PIT CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 7 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PITCHI

3 / 9

2.23 xG

High danger

1 / 4

0.92 xG

3 / 8

0.93 xG

Medium

1 / 14

1.52 xG

1 / 20

0.39 xG

Low

1 / 46

0.78 xG

The Penguins buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A. Soderblom

+0.6

CHI · 12/15

A. Silovs

+0.2

PIT · 21/24

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins pull away from the Blackhawks

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 10–7

01:38PITA. Mantha(J. St. Ivany, R. Shea)1–0
07:19PITB. Rust(S. Crosby, K. Letang)2–0
08:20PITJ. Brazeau(A. Mantha, T. Novak)3–0
12:03PITB. Rust(R. Shea, B. Lizotte)4–0

2ndshots 12–8

10:50CHIN. Foligno(C. Dach, S. Lafferty)4–1
12:20PITJ. Brazeaupower play(B. Kindel, V. Koivunen)5–1
13:17PITJ. Brazeau(C. Dewar, R. Shea)6–1
13:30CHIW. Kaiser(R. Greene, C. Murphy)6–2
18:48PITN. Acciari(J. St. Ivany, B. Lizotte)7–2

3rdshots 2–9

19:59CHIT. Bertuzzi(J. Dickinson)7–3

score reads PIT–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.55

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+3.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.142

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

36.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.55Expected goals3.22

PIT 53% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal24

9High-danger chances4

37All attempts (Corsi)64

Adjusted for score: PIT 30% · CHI 70%

Faceoffs · CHI won71%off39%neu38%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PIT3 / 9 · 2.23 xG

CHI1 / 4 · 0.92 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PIT3 / 8 · 0.93 xG

CHI1 / 14 · 1.52 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PIT1 / 20 · 0.39 xG

CHI1 / 46 · 0.78 xG

PIT went 3-for-8 from medium danger on 0.93 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PIT

7 G · 3.55 xG · +3.5

CHI

3 G · 3.22 xG · -0.2

012345678

PIT finished +3.5 against expected, CHI -0.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PIT

WRIST4/19

SLAP0/9

SNAP1/3

BACKHAND1/1

TIP IN1/1

OTHER0/4

CHI

WRIST2/31

SLAP0/8

SNAP0/1

BACKHAND1/3

TIP IN0/3

OTHER0/18

PIT

CHI

Off the rush

6 G on 23

3.11 xG

2 G on 30

2.37 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 2

0.39 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 4-for-19, CHI 2-for-31. PIT scored 6 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 · 21/24 · .875

+0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium1/141.5+0.5

Low1/460.8-0.2

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

S. Knight

CHI · 5/9 · .556

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/92.2-0.8

Medium3/80.9-2.1

Low1/200.4-0.6

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

A. Soderblom

CHI · 12/15 · .800

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/92.2-0.8

Medium3/80.9-2.1

Low1/200.4-0.6

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PIT

33 shots

Final

79 shots

CHI

46 shots

PIT CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, CHI 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. Shea

#5 · D · PIT

0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 19:37 on ice · +5

J. Brazeau

#16 · R · PIT

3 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 11:37 on ice · +1

J. St. Ivany

#3 · D · PIT

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:45 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Dec 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:09 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 2.8–2.5 Pittsburgh victory with the Penguins at 55% win probability. That edge reflects the raw numbers: Pittsburgh owns 51.0% expected goals and 50.0% Corsi at 5v5, meaning the Penguins will control the puck and the scoring chances.

Chicago's season 5v5 expected-goal percentage of 42.0% ranks well below Pittsburgh's 51.0%. The Corsi differential (50.0% to 46.0%) signals territorial tilt—Pittsburgh will spend more time in the offensive zone. Both teams carry PDO outliers: Pittsburgh at 1.012, outscoring its expected output; Chicago at 0.996, scoring to its actual chances.

Recent form cuts both ways. Chicago sits underwater at -21 goal differential over its last 10. Pittsburgh at -18. Neither club is hot, but the Penguins' edge in shot quality should prove decisive.

The matchup hinges on Rickard Rakell and Chicago's depth scoring. Rakell has posted 1.01 expected goals per 60 minutes with 13 goals and 13 assists; his 12.1% shooting rate and three high-danger goals suggest performance near talent. Watch whether Pittsburgh leans on him early—Chicago will need to shadow aggressively.

For Chicago, Tyler Bertuzzi carries a 0.85 xG/60 rate with 20 goals, 15 assists, and seven high-danger goals. His 18.0% shooting rate makes him clinical. Connor Bedard's 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals, 27 assists, and five high-danger goals shows creation outpacing volume, though the point total reflects enough conversion to keep Chicago competitive.

Pittsburgh's defensive weak link is Caleb Jones. Chicago depends on Anton Frondell. Both teams show 0% high-danger and 0% rebound-goal rates this season—an anomaly suggesting either excellent discipline or data sparsity.

Pittsburgh's skill advantage at even strength, paired with Chicago's recent collapse, gives the model confidence in the lean. How Rakell executes will determine if Pittsburgh's expected edge translates to the scoreboard.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 55%

55%

PIT

Model favorite

55%

45%

PIT50CHI

PIT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.8–2.5 CHI; 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 →CHI

51.0%42.0%

50.0%46.0%

2.662.17

2.552.94

2.451.84

2.122.41

1.0120.996

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.996) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PIT

1-5-4

-18 GD · 5d rest

CHI

2-8-0

-21 GD · 4d rest

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI 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 42.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Blackhawks are underwater at -21 goal differential over their last 10.
The Penguins are underwater at -18 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PIT

Expected in goal

S. Skinner

5 days rest.862 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

4 days rest.920 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

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

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page