Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · BUF at NYR

Sabres pull away from the Rangers

FinalThu, Jan 8

The verdict · earned

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

BUF 5 · NYR 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:46 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 Rangers outshot Buffalo 32–21 and controlled 60% of shot attempts—and still lost 5–2. Buffalo's goaltender C. Ellis stopped 2.14 goals above expected, while the Rangers squandered high-danger chances and couldn't finish.

Expected goals finished nearly even: Buffalo 4.56, New York 4.14. The Rangers' problem wasn't the chances they created; it was what happened when they did. They were 0–7 on high-danger opportunities. M. Samuelsson (1G, 1A in 23:56) and R. McLeod (1G, 1A in 17:30) converted the Sabres' chances into goals from spots the Rangers' goaltender J. Quick couldn't afford to give up.

The turning point came early: McLeod's wrist shot from the high slot at 18:30 of the first period set the tone. Buffalo would go on to score three goals off the rush (on 22 chances); the Rangers managed two (on 26). That's the difference between 5–2 and a game that looked far closer on the underlying numbers.

Both teams generated quality looks. Buffalo posted 0.095 expected goals per shot; New York 0.063. Buffalo's superiority in shot quality, combined with Ellis's 0.938 save percentage, proved decisive. Quick finished at 0.800—respectable against the volume he faced, but 2.14 goals short of what the Sabres threw at him.

New York couldn't recover from its early deficit despite controlling the game's structure. A. Panarin recorded two assists in 20:53, orchestrating the Rangers' play in Buffalo's zone, but his team never pulled closer than three goals. The Sabres pulled away because they converted the few chances that mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 8

BUF

NYR

Sabres pull away from the Rangers

Chances 4.6 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

4.56

NYR

4.14

52% of the chances48%

The board read BUF 5, NYR 2. The chances read BUF 4.6, NYR 4.1.

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

Luck check

BUF

+0.4

goals above expected

BUF4.56 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

NYR4.14 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Rangers left 2.1 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 04:07BUFJ. Doan1–0
P2 06:58BUFA. Tuch2–0
P2 09:34NYRM. Zibanejad2–1
P2 12:34BUFJ. ZuckerPP3–1
P3 00:51NYRV. Trocheck3–2
P3 14:38BUFM. SamuelssonSH4–2
P3 18:30BUFR. McLeodEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

36 shots

Final

81 shots

NYR

45 shots

BUF NYR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFNYR

2 / 8

2.56 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.72 xG

1 / 13

1.54 xG

Medium

1 / 21

2.03 xG

2 / 27

0.47 xG

Low

1 / 38

0.39 xG

The Rangers went 0 for 7 from the slot.

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

In the net

C. Ellis

+2.1

BUF · 30/32

J. Quick

+0.6

NYR · 16/20

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres pull away from the Rangers

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 4–7

04:07BUFJ. Doan(M. Samuelsson, J. Zucker)1–0

2ndshots 14–11

06:58BUFA. Tuch(B. Byram, J. Norris)2–0
09:34NYRM. Zibanejad(A. Panarin)2–1
12:34BUFJ. Zuckerpower play(R. Dahlin, T. Thompson)3–1

3rdshots 3–14

00:51NYRV. Trocheck(J. Miller, A. Panarin)3–2
14:38BUFM. Samuelssonshorthanded(R. McLeod)4–2
18:30BUFR. McLeodempty net5–2

score reads BUF–NYR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.56

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.074

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

42.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.56Expected goals4.14

BUF 52% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal32

8High-danger chances7

48All attempts (Corsi)66

Adjusted for score: BUF 37% · NYR 63%

Faceoffs · NYR won91%off52%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF2 / 8 · 2.56 xG

NYR0 / 7 · 1.72 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF1 / 13 · 1.54 xG

NYR1 / 21 · 2.03 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF2 / 27 · 0.47 xG

NYR1 / 38 · 0.39 xG

NYR went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.72 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

5 G · 4.56 xG · +0.4

NYR

2 G · 4.14 xG · -2.1

0123456

BUF finished +0.4 against expected, NYR -2.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

WRIST2/12

SNAP2/16

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED1/1

OTHER0/12

NYR

WRIST1/26

SNAP0/10

SLAP1/5

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/21

BUF

NYR

Off the rush

3 G on 22

2.20 xG

2 G on 26

2.54 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.59 xG

0 G on 4

0.65 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 2-for-12, NYR 1-for-26. BUF 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. Ellis

BUF · 30/32 · .938

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.7+1.7

Medium1/212.0+1.0

Low1/380.4-0.6

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

J. Quick

NYR · 16/20 · .800

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/82.6+0.6

Medium1/131.5+0.5

Low2/270.5-1.5

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

36 shots

Final

81 shots

NYR

45 shots

BUF NYR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

M. Samuelsson

#23 · D · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:56 on ice · +1

A. Panarin

#10 · L · NYR

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 20:53 on ice · -3

R. McLeod

#71 · C · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:30 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 8

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:45 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 2.5–2.5 game with Rangers at 51% win probability—negligible separation in a sport where randomness dominates. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The underlying metrics are similarly balanced. Buffalo holds a 50.0% expected goals share against New York's 48.0%, evidence of a marginal shot quality edge. Corsi%, the simpler measure of who controls the puck, is split dead even at 49.0% on both sides. Where Buffalo diverges is PDO—1.020 against New York's 1.009—a sign the Sabres are running hot on both finishing and goaltending save percentage, which means regression is coming.

The players who can tip this aren't evenly distributed. Jason Zucker remains Buffalo's primary engine at 1.07 xG per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 14 assists, and he's converted at a 15.1% rate—unsustainably high. Josh Doan, the secondary threat at 1.01 xG/60, has produced 15 goals and 18 assists on just 2 high-danger chances, suggesting luck will play a role in how long he sustains that. New York's elite scoring is concentrated differently: Adam Sykora carries a 20.0% shooting percentage across just 3 goals and 1 assist, which is the definition of a player whose output will stabilize downward. Gabe Perreault's 0.79 xG/60 with 8 goals and 11 assists is more sustainable but still dependent on a 13.1% conversion rate.

Neither team generates high-danger or rebound scoring at an elevated rate, which removes a secondary path to offense for both. Buffalo's defensive weakness centers on Jack Quinn; New York's is Vincent Iorio. If either takes a costly turn, the opposing team gets a break.

The 51% projection reflects reality: this is a dead heat. One bounce either way, one PDO regression or one hot streak, decides it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NYR 51%

51%

NYR

Model favorite

49%

51%

BUF50NYR

NYR by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.5 NYR; 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 →NYR

50.0%48.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.552.26

2.552.40

2.351.88

1.901.90

1.0201.009

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.009) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

BUF

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

NYR

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.009

NYR 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' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

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

NYR

Adam Sykora3G 1A

0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh

Gabe Perreault8G 11A

0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page