Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
← Sat, Jan 3 · the slate
Breakdown · BUF at CBJ

J. Greaves stands tall as the Blue Jackets edge the Sabres

FinalSat, Jan 3
BUFBuffalo Sabres1CBJColumbus Blue Jackets5
The verdict · stolen

The Blue Jackets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 5.78–3.76 and won anyway.

BUF 1 · CBJ 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:29 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 Blue Jackets defeated the Sabres 5–1 despite losing the expected-goals battle 3.76–5.78. Buffalo controlled 61% of xG at 5v5—a margin that should have meant a comfortable victory.

It didn't, because J. Greaves was exceptional. The Blue Jackets' goaltender stopped 32 of 33 shots (0.970 SV%), overperforming his expected save percentage by 4.78 goals. With a performance like that, Columbus didn't need to win the metrics; they just needed to capitalize when it counted.

Cole Sillinger's snap shot from the high slot (P3, 11:46) provided the opening salvo. Buffalo had the territorial advantage—11 high-danger chances to Columbus's 5—and yet converted none. The Blue Jackets, by contrast, found the back of the net in unconventional places: two from low-danger spots, four off the rush on 28 total rush chances. U. Luukkonen was flawless on high-danger opportunities (100% SV on 5 shots) but had no answer for Columbus's opportunism elsewhere.

The story of the game is written in the variance. CBJ overperformed their xG by 1.24 goals. Buffalo underperformed by 4.78. Combined, that's a six-goal swing toward Columbus. The Blue Jackets held 52% of shot attempts (35–33 on goal), which provided enough parity to stay in the game—but Greaves' brilliance and timely finishing on secondary chances are what won it.

This wasn't a clinic in advanced hockey. It was a master class in capitalizing on an opponent's waste.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 3
BUF
1
CBJ
5

J. Greaves stands tall as the Blue Jackets edge the Sabres

Chances 5.8 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sabres deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
5.78
CBJ
3.76
61% of the chances39%

The board read BUF 1, CBJ 5. The chances read BUF 5.8, CBJ 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
+1.2
goals above expected
CBJ3.76 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
BUF5.78 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres left 4.8 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 03:00CBJD. Mateychuk0–1
  2. P1 11:26BUFJ. Doan1–1
  3. P1 14:04CBJB. GaunceSH1–2
  4. P1 17:12CBJD. Voronkov1–3
  5. P2 08:04CBJM. Olivier1–4
  6. P3 11:46CBJC. SillingerEN1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
66 shots
1
Final
115 shots
CBJ
49 shots
5
BUF attackCBJ attack
BUF CBJ Goal
66
shots · 1 in
49
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFCBJ
0 / 11
2.50 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.16 xG
1 / 24
2.49 xG
Medium
3 / 18
1.97 xG
0 / 46
0.79 xG
Low
2 / 43
0.63 xG

The Sabres went 0 for 11 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Greaves
+4.8
CBJ · 32/33
C
U. Luukkonen
−0.2
BUF · 30/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Greaves stands tall as the Blue Jackets edge the Sabres

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 10–13
  1. 03:00CBJD. Mateychuk(B. Jenner, Z. Werenski)0–1
  2. 11:26BUFJ. Doan(J. Norris, O. Power)1–1
  3. 14:04CBJB. Gaunceshorthanded1–2
  4. 17:12CBJD. Voronkov(I. Provorov, D. Severson)1–3
2ndshots 11–14
  1. 08:04CBJM. Olivier(Z. Aston-Reese, D. Severson)1–4
3rdshots 12–8
  1. 11:46CBJC. Sillingerempty net(D. Mateychuk, Z. Werenski)1–5

score reads BUF–CBJ

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.76
CBJ chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.063
CBJ puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.78Expected goals3.76
BUF 61% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal35
11High-danger chances5
81All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: BUF 62% · CBJ 39%
Faceoffs · CBJ won39%off60%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF0 / 11 · 2.50 xG
CBJ0 / 5 · 1.16 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF1 / 24 · 2.49 xG
CBJ3 / 18 · 1.97 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF0 / 46 · 0.79 xG
CBJ2 / 43 · 0.63 xG

BUF went 0-for-11 from high danger on 2.50 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
1 G · 5.78 xG · -4.8
CBJ
5 G · 3.76 xG · +1.2
01234567

BUF finished -4.8 against expected, CBJ +1.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
SNAP1/26
WRIST0/11
SLAP0/17
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/5
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/15
CBJ
SNAP2/13
WRIST1/20
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND1/6
TIP IN1/6
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/17
BUF
CBJ
Off the rush
1 G on 41
4.17 xG
4 G on 28
2.60 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.90 xG
0 G on 3
0.40 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-26, CBJ 2-for-13. CBJ 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 · 30/34 · .882
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.2+1.2
Medium3/182.0-1.0
Low2/430.6-1.4

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

J. Greaves
CBJ · 32/33 · .970
+4.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/112.5+2.5
Medium1/242.5+1.5
Low0/460.8+0.8

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

115 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BUF
66 shots
1
Final
115 shots
CBJ
49 shots
5
BUF attackCBJ attack
BUF CBJ Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, CBJ 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. Mateychuk
#5 · D · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:15 on ice · +2
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 23:12 on ice · +1
D. Severson
#78 · D · CBJ
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:55 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:51 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

Buffalo and Columbus are virtually indistinguishable on paper. The model projects a 2.5-2.7 goal spread with the Blue Jackets at 54% win probability—this is as close to a pick'em as exists.

Form masks deeper competitive balance. The Sabres have ripped off a 10-0-0 run, but that says nothing about talent relative to Columbus. At 5v5, the Blue Jackets edge Buffalo on both efficiency and volume: 52.0% expected goals and 51.0% Corsi against Buffalo's 50.0% and 49.0%. A coin flip, then, with underlying metrics backing it.

Buffalo's vulnerability is sustainability. The Sabres' 1.020 PDO is unsustainably hot; the Blue Jackets' 1.003 sits closer to normal, meaning Columbus will remain competitive once goal-scoring regression arrives.

Buffalo builds on Jason Zucker, who generates 1.07 xG/60 with 14 goals and 14 assists—six of them from rush chances at 15.1% shooting. Josh Doan follows with 1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, and 18 assists, but his 11.5% shooting rate masks unsustainable efficiency. Boone Jenner leads Columbus at 0.98 xG/60 with 11 goals and 21 assists. Mathieu Olivier provides secondary scoring at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals and 9 assists.

The defensive asymmetry matters only at margins. Jack Quinn is Buffalo's liability; Conor Garland fills that role in Columbus. Neither team converts high-danger chances reliably—both register 0% on high-danger and rebound scoring, a sign that neutral-zone execution, not defensive breakdown, determines play.

Take the Blue Jackets at 54% if analytics sway you. Take Buffalo if recent form does. This is a true toss-up.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 54%
54%
CBJ
Model favorite
46%
54%
BUF50CBJ

CBJ by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.7 CBJ; 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 →CBJ
50.0%52.0%
49.0%51.0%
2.552.63
2.552.43
2.352.12
1.901.98
1.0201.003

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.003) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
BUF
10-0-0
+18 GD · 2d rest
CBJ
4-6-0
-4 GD · 2d rest
1.020
BUF PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (10-0-0 in their last 10).
  • 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
2 days rest.966 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CBJ
Expected in goal
J. Greaves
2 days rest.909 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page