Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
Breakdown · PIT at CBJ

Penguins run the Blue Jackets off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 5 · CBJ 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:31 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 controlled the play so thoroughly that a 5-4 overtime result feels generous to Columbus — the Penguins owned 64% of 5v5 expected goals (4.63–2.64), a gap that should have buried the Blue Jackets.

What kept the game close was simple variance. The Blue Jackets overperformed their xG by 1.36 goals, scoring three times from low-danger spots that goaltenders are expected to stop. Against that luck, A. Silovs underperformed, surrendering 1.36 more goals than his workload deserved; his 0.840 SV% on 25 shots masks how thoroughly Pittsburgh controlled the ice. J. Greaves, meanwhile, delivered (0.884 SV%), but his team never generated enough possessions to cash in.

The possession gap told the full story: Columbus managed 37% of shot attempts (25–43), a stranglehold that explained the offensive drought. Pittsburgh was ruthless on transition, converting three rushes from 39 attempts — the kind of efficiency that closes games. Their power play was dominant too, going 2-for-13 (0.52 xG).

Sidney Crosby ended it with a backhander from the doorstep at 02:22 of overtime.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 4
PIT
5
CBJ
4

Penguins run the Blue Jackets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.6 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
4.63
CBJ
2.64
64% of the chances36%

The board read PIT 5, CBJ 4. The chances read PIT 4.6, CBJ 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+0.4
goals above expected
PIT4.63 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ2.64 expected · 4 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 01:50PITV. Koivunen1–0
  2. P1 08:21CBJD. Voronkov1–1
  3. P1 08:48CBJM. Marchment1–2
  4. P1 18:38CBJK. Marchenko1–3
  5. P2 00:47CBJZ. Werenski1–4
  6. P2 16:51PITN. Acciari2–4
  7. P3 03:28PITT. NovakPP3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
67 shots
5
Final
104 shots
CBJ
37 shots
4
PIT attackCBJ attack
PIT CBJ Goal
67
shots · 5 in
37
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITCBJ
1 / 8
1.70 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.45 xG
4 / 19
2.01 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.77 xG
0 / 65
0.91 xG
Low
3 / 33
0.42 xG

High-danger looks: PIT 1 of 8, CBJ 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
J. Greaves
−0.4
CBJ · 38/43
D-
A. Silovs
−1.4
PIT · 21/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins run the Blue Jackets off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 9–12
  1. 01:50PITV. Koivunen(B. Kindel, J. St. Ivany)1–0
  2. 08:21CBJD. Voronkov(D. Mateychuk)1–1
  3. 08:48CBJM. Marchment(A. Fantilli, K. Marchenko)1–2
  4. 18:38CBJK. Marchenko(Z. Werenski, D. Mateychuk)1–3
2ndshots 21–6
  1. 00:47CBJZ. Werenski(B. Jenner, M. Olivier)1–4
  2. 16:51PITN. Acciari(C. Dewar)2–4
3rdshots 11–7
  1. 03:28PITT. Novakpower play(B. Kindel)3–4
  2. 19:46PITR. Rakellpower play(A. Mantha, S. Crosby)4–4
OTshots 2–0
  1. 02:22PITS. Crosby(E. Karlsson, E. Chinakhov)5–4

score reads PIT–CBJ

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.63
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.979
PIT puck luck
Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
63.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.63Expected goals2.64
PIT 64% of the chance quality
43Shots on goal25
8High-danger chances2
92All attempts (Corsi)53
Adjusted for score: PIT 67% · CBJ 33%
Faceoffs · CBJ won38%off33%neu68%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT1 / 8 · 1.70 xG
CBJ0 / 2 · 0.45 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT4 / 19 · 2.01 xG
CBJ1 / 18 · 1.77 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT0 / 65 · 0.91 xG
CBJ3 / 33 · 0.42 xG

CBJ went 3-for-33 from low danger on 0.42 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
5 G · 4.63 xG · +0.4
CBJ
4 G · 2.64 xG · +1.4
0123456

PIT finished +0.4 against expected, CBJ +1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
SNAP2/29
WRIST1/16
SLAP1/11
TIP IN0/8
BACKHAND1/3
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/25
CBJ
SNAP2/20
WRIST0/5
SLAP0/3
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND1/3
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/16
PIT
CBJ
Off the rush
3 G on 39
3.29 xG
1 G on 26
2.05 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 5
0.53 xG
1 G on 4
0.44 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 2-for-29, CBJ 2-for-20. PIT 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. Silovs
PIT · 21/25 · .840
-1.4
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium1/181.8+0.8
Low3/330.4-2.6

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

J. Greaves
CBJ · 38/43 · .884
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/81.7+0.7
Medium4/192.0-2.0
Low0/650.9+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

104 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
67 shots
5
Final
104 shots
CBJ
37 shots
4
PIT attackCBJ attack
PIT CBJ Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:54 on ice · +1
D. Mateychuk
#5 · D · CBJ
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 25:01 on ice · +3
S. Crosby
#87 · C · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:34 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Jan 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:11 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, giving the Blue Jackets 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as advanced metrics get.

The underlying talent is evenly distributed. Pittsburgh owns 51.0% expected goals share at 5v5 while Columbus posts 52.0%. Corsi splits are nearly identical at 50.0% for the Penguins and 51.0% for the Blue Jackets. Neither team's PDO (1.012 for Pittsburgh, 1.003 for Columbus) shows meaningful luck variance—both are skating within a whisker of sustainable performance.

The goaltending situation tilts toward chaos. J. Greaves faces back-to-back duties for Pittsburgh, while S. Skinner does the same for Columbus. Expect either a backup start or a noticeably fatigued starter from one or both sides.

Pittsburgh's offensive burden falls on Rickard Rakell, who carries 1.01 expected goals per 60 minutes and has banked 13 goals and 13 assists with 3 high-danger chances. His 12.1% shooting rate suggests some unsustainability, meaning regression is likelier than continued outperformance. Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60) was a secondary threat but has been recalled from the AHL for further evaluation and testing, effectively removing him from this matchup.

Columbus counters with Boone Jenner, whose 0.98 xG/60 places him in that high-volume, scoring-relevant band. He owns 11 goals and 21 assists with 2 high-danger chances, and his 9.6% shooting rate leaves less room for positive variance than Rakell enjoys. Mathieu Olivier (0.89 xG/60, 12 goals, 13 assists, 13.3% shooting) offers secondary thrust and a shooting percentage that screams unsustainable.

Both teams' goal-scoring machinery has flatlined on high-danger and rebound opportunities—each sits at 0% rates, a red flag suggesting neither has converted what should be their easiest looks. Pittsburgh's defense features Caleb Jones as its weakest link; Columbus will lean on Conor Garland as theirs.

This game lives in true coin-flip territory because nothing separates the teams in any meaningful dimension. The slight model edge to Columbus reflects nothing more than statistical noise dressed as prediction.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 53%
53%
CBJ
Model favorite
47%
53%
PIT50CBJ

CBJ by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 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
PIT← edge
edge →CBJ
51.0%52.0%
50.0%51.0%
2.662.63
2.552.43
2.452.12
2.121.98
1.0121.003

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.003) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PIT
5-4-1
-1 GD · 1d rest
CBJ
5-5-0
+3 GD · 1d rest
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • J. Greaves is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
back-to-back.917 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.

CBJ
Expected in goal
J. Greaves
back-to-back.970 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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.

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
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