Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · BUF at DAL

Sabres pull away from the Stars

FinalWed, Dec 31

The verdict · coin flip

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

BUF 4 · DAL 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:00 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 won 4-1, but Dallas has reason to wonder: they played better hockey.

Buffalo accumulated 3.23 expected goals. Dallas accumulated 3.34. The scoreboard lied.

The explanation is simple and brutal: goaltending variance. U. Luukkonen (BUF) faced 29 shots, stopped 28, and outperformed his expected performance by 2.34 goals. C. DeSmith (DAL) faced 31 shots, stopped 27, and fell 0.77 short of expectation. When a goaltender beats his expected save percentage by more than 2 goals, the opponent's xG advantage evaporates.

Buffalo won on the metrics that matter at even strength. They created 6 high-danger chances to Dallas's 2. They converted at an unsustainable rate on the rush—4 goals on 29 attempts. T. Thompson's snap shot from the top of the circles (P3, 11:35) tilted the game past recovery.

Dallas's underlying play was sound. They held 48% of shot attempts. They crashed for rebounds, converting 1 of 4 opportunities. None of it mattered. U. Luukkonen stole a contest Dallas almost certainly should have won.

The Sabres leave with the victory. Dallas played well enough to win. Goaltending decided otherwise.

Three Stars

#72 T. Thompson (BUF) — 2G, 1A in 18:45
#4 B. Byram (BUF) — 1G, 1A in 24:36
#91 J. Doan (BUF) — 1G, 1A in 15:27

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 31

BUF

DAL

Sabres pull away from the Stars

Chances 3.2 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

3.23

DAL

3.34

49% of the chances51%

The board read BUF 4, DAL 1. The chances read BUF 3.2, DAL 3.3.

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

Luck check

BUF

+0.8

goals above expected

BUF3.23 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

DAL3.34 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Stars left 2.3 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 00:15DALM. Bourque0–1
P2 07:44BUFJ. Doan1–1
P2 17:05BUFB. Byram2–1
P3 09:21BUFT. Thompson3–1
P3 11:35BUFT. Thompson4–1

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

46 shots

Final

84 shots

DAL

38 shots

BUF DAL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFDAL

1 / 2

0.39 xG

High danger

1 / 6

1.59 xG

3 / 20

2.34 xG

Medium

0 / 11

1.12 xG

0 / 37

0.50 xG

Low

0 / 31

0.63 xG

High-danger looks: BUF 1 of 2, DAL 1 of 6.

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

In the net

U. Luukkonen

+2.3

BUF · 28/29

D-

C. DeSmith

−0.8

DAL · 27/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres pull away from the Stars

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 14–14

00:15DALM. Bourque(J. Robertson, M. Heiskanen)0–1

2ndshots 11–8

07:44BUFJ. Doan(T. Thompson)1–1
17:05BUFB. Byram(N. Ostlund, A. Tuch)2–1

3rdshots 6–7

09:21BUFT. Thompson(J. Doan, B. Byram)3–1
11:35BUFT. Thompson(N. Ostlund, O. Power)4–1

score reads BUF–DAL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.23

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.8

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.047

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

55.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.23Expected goals3.34

DAL 51% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal29

2High-danger chances6

59All attempts (Corsi)48

Adjusted for score: BUF 55% · DAL 45%

Faceoffs · DAL won35%off60%neu31%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF1 / 2 · 0.39 xG

DAL1 / 6 · 1.59 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF3 / 20 · 2.34 xG

DAL0 / 11 · 1.12 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF0 / 37 · 0.50 xG

DAL0 / 31 · 0.63 xG

DAL went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.12 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

4 G · 3.23 xG · +0.8

DAL

1 G · 3.34 xG · -2.3

012345

BUF finished +0.8 against expected, DAL -2.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

SNAP4/26

BACKHAND0/7

WRIST0/5

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/13

DAL

SNAP1/28

BACKHAND0/2

WRIST0/3

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/10

BUF

DAL

Off the rush

4 G on 29

2.06 xG

0 G on 23

2.18 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 8

0.89 xG

1 G on 4

0.67 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 4-for-26, DAL 1-for-28. BUF 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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 28/29 · .966

+2.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.6+0.6

Medium0/111.1+1.1

Low0/310.6+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

C. DeSmith

DAL · 27/31 · .871

-0.8

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.4-0.6

Medium3/202.3-0.7

Low0/370.5+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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

46 shots

Final

84 shots

DAL

38 shots

BUF DAL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

T. Thompson

#72 · C · BUF

2 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 18:45 on ice · +3

B. Byram

#4 · D · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:36 on ice · +3

J. Doan

#91 · R · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:27 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 31

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:34 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 this game at 2.4–2.6 goals per team, handing Dallas a 53% win probability—essentially a pick'em.

Buffalo enters hot, rattling off nine wins and one loss across ten games. On the season, the Sabres' xG% of 50.0% trails Dallas's 51.0%, but Buffalo's Corsi% of 49.0% suggests they're controlling possession against a Stars team posting 47.0%. Both clubs are inflated by unsustainably high PDOs—Buffalo's 1.020 and Dallas's 1.024—meaning regression is coming for one or both.

The rest split favors Dallas: three days since their last game to Buffalo's one. That edge compounds at goaltending, where A. Lyon takes a back-to-back; watch for a backup start or a tired performance from the starter.

Buffalo's Jason Zucker drives the game's highest danger rate per minute at 1.07 xG/60, backing it with 14 goals, 14 assists, and six high-danger conversions at 15.1% shooting. Josh Doan adds secondary scoring—1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, and 18 assists—though his two high-danger goals suggest volume over shot quality. Dallas counters with Jason Robertson leading in goals (25) at 0.96 xG/60; his two high-danger tallies point to timely finishing. Michael Bunting offers depth at 0.83 xG/60 with eight goals, 14 assists, and 7.6% shooting.

The margin hinges on whether Zucker and Robertson overwhelm their assignments or whether secondary scoring tilts the board. Doan's 11.5% shooting rate suggests positive variance ahead, mirroring Bunting's 7.6% baseline. Jack Quinn represents Buffalo's defensive liability; Tyler Myers does the same for Dallas.

Given the form edge, the rest advantage, and nearly identical underlying metrics, Dallas edges this in the models. But Buffalo's ten-game run and possession advantage make it close enough that either team leaving with two points wouldn't surprise.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 53%

53%

DAL

Model favorite

47%

53%

BUF50DAL

DAL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.4–2.6 DAL; 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 →DAL

50.0%51.0%

49.0%47.0%

2.552.36

2.552.29

2.352.07

1.901.68

1.0201.024

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

9-1-0

+12 GD · 1d rest

DAL

6-2-2

+7 GD · 3d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

A. Lyon is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (9-1-0 in their last 10).
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Stars have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

back-to-back.889 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.

DAL

Expected in goal

J. Oettinger

3 days rest.909 last start

Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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

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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page