Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Thu, Jan 1 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at PIT

Penguins edge the Red Wings in overtime

Final / OTThu, Jan 1
DETDetroit Red Wings3PITPittsburgh Penguins4
The verdict · coin flip

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

DET 3 · PIT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:42 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

Detroit generated the better chances — expected goals split 3.17–3.39, a Red Wings edge — but Pittsburgh's goalie won the night while Detroit's tanked it.

The Penguins overperformed their xG by 0.83, nearly the entire margin. C. Talbot fell 0.83 short of his expected save count; A. Silovs outperformed his. High-danger chances split 2–1 for Detroit, yet Pittsburgh escaped with a 4-3 overtime victory.

Pittsburgh held 53% of shot attempts (31–27 on goal) and converted their looks with ruthless efficiency. They scored twice from low-danger spots — chances the opposing goalie should routinely stop. Off the rush, both teams found the net 3 times, but Detroit squeezed 3 goals from 26 chances while Pittsburgh needed 29. Detroit's power play was the most dominant stretch of either team's game, generating 1.77 xG on 29 shots to score twice.

Yet goaltending decided it. Pittsburgh created three rebound opportunities but converted none, failing to bury second chances despite crashing effectively. The turning point came at 00:58 of overtime when Kris Letang fired a slap shot from the high slot to end it.

Three Stars

  • #87 S. Crosby (PIT) — 2G, 1A in 18:27
  • #65 E. Karlsson (PIT) — 2A in 22:34
  • #71 D. Larkin (DET) — 1A in 23:32
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 1
DET
3
PIT
4

Penguins edge the Red Wings in overtime

Chances 3.4 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Penguins took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
3.39
PIT
3.17
52% of the chances48%

The board read DET 3, PIT 4. The chances read DET 3.4, PIT 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+0.8
goals above expected
PIT3.17 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
DET3.39 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:08PITS. CrosbyPP0–1
  2. P1 05:46PITS. Crosby0–2
  3. P1 17:46DETJ. van RiemsdykPP1–2
  4. P2 01:01DETA. Copp2–2
  5. P3 15:51PITB. Lizotte2–3
  6. P3 17:02DETA. DeBrincatPP3–3
  7. OT 00:58PITK. Letang3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
47 shots
3
Final
93 shots
PIT
46 shots
4
DET attackPIT attack
DET PIT Goal
47
shots · 3 in
46
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETPIT
2 / 2
0.47 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.22 xG
1 / 15
2.04 xG
Medium
2 / 18
2.10 xG
0 / 51
0.88 xG
Low
2 / 47
0.84 xG

High-danger looks: DET 2 of 2, PIT 0 of 1.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
A. Silovs
+0.4
PIT · 24/27
D-
C. Talbot
−0.8
DET · 27/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins edge the Red Wings in overtime

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 10–6
  1. 04:08PITS. Crosbypower play(A. Mantha, E. Karlsson)0–1
  2. 05:46PITS. Crosby0–2
  3. 17:46DETJ. van Riemsdykpower play(M. Kasper, S. Edvinsson)1–2
2ndshots 10–9
  1. 01:01DETA. Copp(B. Chiarot, P. Kane)2–2
3rdshots 7–14
  1. 15:51PITB. Lizotte(E. Karlsson, P. Wotherspoon)2–3
  2. 17:02DETA. DeBrincatpower play(L. Raymond, D. Larkin)3–3
OTshots 0–2
  1. 00:58PITK. Letang(S. Crosby, B. Rust)3–4

score reads DET–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.17
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.016
PIT puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
49.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.39Expected goals3.17
DET 52% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal31
2High-danger chances1
68All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: DET 53% · PIT 47%
Faceoffs · PIT won46%off67%neu52%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DET2 / 2 · 0.47 xG
PIT0 / 1 · 0.22 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DET1 / 15 · 2.04 xG
PIT2 / 18 · 2.10 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DET0 / 51 · 0.88 xG
PIT2 / 47 · 0.84 xG

DET went 2-for-2 from high danger on 0.47 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
3 G · 3.39 xG · -0.4
PIT
4 G · 3.17 xG · +0.8
012345

DET finished -0.4 against expected, PIT +0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DET
WRIST1/20
TIP IN1/13
SLAP0/9
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND1/3
OTHER0/21
PIT
WRIST2/31
TIP IN0/3
SLAP2/5
SNAP0/5
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/20
DET
PIT
Off the rush
3 G on 26
2.54 xG
3 G on 29
2.05 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.30 xG
0 G on 3
0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 1-for-20, PIT 2-for-31. DET 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
C. Talbot
DET · 27/31 · .871
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium2/182.1+0.1
Low2/470.8-1.2

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

A. Silovs
PIT · 24/27 · .889
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/20.5-1.5
Medium1/152.0+1.0
Low0/510.9+0.9

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
47 shots
3
Final
93 shots
PIT
46 shots
4
DET attackPIT attack
DET PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET left, PIT 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
S. Crosby
#87 · C · PIT
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:27 on ice · +2
E. Karlsson
#65 · D · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:34 on ice
D. Larkin
#71 · C · DET
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:32 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 1
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:41 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 2.5–2.7 goal game with the Penguins at 54% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Detroit's the hotter team. The Red Wings are 7-3-0 in their last ten with strong underlying numbers to match, while Pittsburgh is underwater at -8 goal differential over the same stretch. The underlying 5v5 data tells a tight story: DET's 49.0% xG% is nearly identical to their 49.0% Corsi%, suggesting efficiency without luck, while Pittsburgh sits at 51.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%—controlling slightly more play but with a PDO of 1.012 suggesting some regression ahead. Detroit's PDO sits at 0.985, the inverse problem.

Both S. Skinner and J. Gibson are on back-to-backs, so watch for either a backup start or tired starters. That makes goaltending the one wild card in an otherwise even matchup.

Players to Watch

  • Alex DeBrincat (DET) — 0.88 xG/60, 17 goals, 28 assists, 2 HD goals, 9.0% shooting
  • Marco Kasper (DET) — 0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists, 1 HD goal, 6.1% shooting
  • Rickard Rakell (PIT) — 1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 HD goals, 12.1% shooting
  • Filip Hallander (PIT) — 1.28 xG/60, 0 goals, 3 assists, likely out on IR

DeBrincat's 9.0% shooting rate suggests variance could cut either way. Kasper is generating looks but his 6.1% rate is the real concern. Hallander's absence removes Pittsburgh's most dangerous expected-goal producer, elevating Rakell's 12.1% shooting as earned production rather than luck.

Defensively, both teams are at 0% on hard-goal and rebound-goal rates. That flatline suggests playoff-caliber discipline or small sample noise. Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's weak link on the back end, while Caleb Jones draws the same question mark for Pittsburgh.

The verdict: neither team has a clear edge. Detroit's recent form and balanced play are real, but Pittsburgh's underlying shot metrics suggest regression is more a matter of when than if. A 2.5-goal range with Pittsburgh favored by four percentage points isn't a prediction—it's a shrug.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 54%
54%
PIT
Model favorite
46%
54%
DET50PIT

PIT by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.5–2.7 PIT; 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
DET← edge
edge →PIT
49.0%51.0%
49.0%50.0%
2.382.66
2.502.55
1.732.45
2.072.12
0.9851.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DET
7-3-0
+3 GD · 1d rest
PIT
3-5-2
-8 GD · 1d rest
0.985
DET PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Gibson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Red Wings are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
  • The Penguins are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DET
Expected in goal
J. Gibson
back-to-back.958 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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.

PIT
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
back-to-back.964 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.

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
DET
Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
Marco Kasper7G 8A
0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page