Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · NJD at PIT

Penguins pull away from the Devils

FinalThu, Jan 8

NJDNew Jersey Devils1 PITPittsburgh Penguins4

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 1 · PIT 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:48 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 4-1 scoreline flattered Pittsburgh. Expected goals split 3.62–3.07, too narrow a margin to justify the final.

The disconnect came from goaltending and execution. S. Skinner stopped 2.07 goals above expected; New Jersey underperformed its xG by 2.07. J. Allen's 0.862 SV% captured the gap—the Devils created looks but couldn't finish them.

Shot attempts landed 29–29, dead even. High-danger chances favored Pittsburgh 4–2. The Penguins exploited transition: 4 goals on 27 rush attempts, a conversion rate that broke the game.

Blake Lizotte's tip-in from the slot (P3, 13:26) marked the turning point, when Pittsburgh took control.

Neither team converted rebounds. Pittsburgh created 5 rebound opportunities; New Jersey 4. The gap lay in transition execution and shot placement earlier in the possession.

Three Stars:

#65 E. Karlsson (PIT) — 1G, 1A in 22:56
#67 R. Rakell (PIT) — 2A in 19:11
#87 S. Crosby (PIT) — 2A in 17:33

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 8

NJD

PIT

Penguins pull away from the Devils

Chances 3.1 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

NJD

3.07

PIT

3.62

46% of the chances54%

The board read NJD 1, PIT 4. The chances read NJD 3.1, PIT 3.6.

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

Luck check

PIT

+0.4

goals above expected

PIT3.62 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

NJD3.07 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Devils 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 06:39PITE. Karlsson0–1
P2 05:23PITC. Dewar0–2
P2 19:07PITE. MalkinPP0–3
P3 02:55NJDL. HughesPP1–3
P3 13:26PITB. Lizotte1–4

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

Where the shots came from

NJD

41 shots

Final

88 shots

PIT

47 shots

NJD PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NJDPIT

0 / 2

0.52 xG

High danger

0 / 4

0.86 xG

0 / 17

1.98 xG

Medium

4 / 22

2.23 xG

1 / 38

0.57 xG

Low

0 / 41

0.53 xG

High-danger looks: NJD 0 of 2, PIT 0 of 4.

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

In the net

S. Skinner

+2.1

PIT · 28/29

J. Allen

−0.4

NJD · 25/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins pull away from the Devils

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 11–7

06:39PITE. Karlsson(R. Rakell, S. Crosby)0–1

2ndshots 6–17

05:23PITC. Dewar(R. Rakell, K. Letang)0–2
19:07PITE. Malkinpower play(S. Crosby, E. Karlsson)0–3

3rdshots 12–5

02:55NJDL. Hughespower play(D. Hamilton, J. Hughes)1–3
13:26PITB. Lizotte(N. Acciari, C. Dewar)1–4

score reads NJD–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.62

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.042

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

54.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.07Expected goals3.62

PIT 54% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal29

2High-danger chances4

57All attempts (Corsi)67

Adjusted for score: NJD 52% · PIT 48%

Faceoffs · PIT won52%off37%neu41%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NJD0 / 2 · 0.52 xG

PIT0 / 4 · 0.86 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NJD0 / 17 · 1.98 xG

PIT4 / 22 · 2.23 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NJD1 / 38 · 0.57 xG

PIT0 / 41 · 0.53 xG

NJD went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 1.98 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NJD

1 G · 3.07 xG · -2.1

PIT

4 G · 3.62 xG · +0.4

012345

NJD finished -2.1 against expected, PIT +0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NJD

WRIST0/25

TIP IN0/6

SLAP1/4

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/1

SNAP0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/16

PIT

WRIST2/28

TIP IN1/8

SLAP1/6

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

SNAP0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/20

NJD

PIT

Off the rush

0 G on 27

2.29 xG

4 G on 27

2.41 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.47 xG

0 G on 5

0.70 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 0-for-25, PIT 2-for-28. PIT 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

J. Allen

NJD · 25/29 · .862

-0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium4/222.2-1.8

Low0/410.5+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

S. Skinner

PIT · 28/29 · .966

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium0/172.0+2.0

Low1/380.6-0.4

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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NJD

41 shots

Final

88 shots

PIT

47 shots

NJD PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD 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

E. Karlsson

#65 · D · PIT

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:56 on ice · +1

R. Rakell

#67 · R · PIT

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:11 on ice · +2

S. Crosby

#87 · C · PIT

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:33 on ice · +1

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, 11:47 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-to-2.7 goal range with Pittsburgh at 54% win probability. This is pick'em hockey.

The matchup is remarkably balanced at even strength. New Jersey owns 51.0% Corsi and 50.0% expected goals, while Pittsburgh sits at 50.0% Corsi and 51.0% expected goals—a statistical dead heat. The real separation lies in puck luck: New Jersey's PDO of 0.971 suggests cold-shooting regression ahead, whereas Pittsburgh's 1.012 indicates the Penguins are running hot. That gap matters.

New Jersey arrives wounded. Over its last 10 games, the Devils sit at minus-13 goal differential—underwater enough to raise questions about whether this matchup finds them on the rebound or in freefall. The Penguins, conversely, arrive rested on four days' recovery to New Jersey's single day off. That rest advantage is real.

The wild card is goaltending. J. Markstrom faces the back-to-back situation; Pittsburgh's defense must account for the possibility of a backup start or a fatigued starter.

Jack Hughes (18G, 17A, 1 hard-chance goal, 11.5% shooting) leads New Jersey's offense, his shot percentage reflecting opportunism over volume. Timo Meier (13G, 15A, 3 hard-chance goals, 1.08 xG/60) drives the Devils' dangerous chances at a higher rate but shoots at just 6.7%—an underperformance due for correction. Pittsburgh's Rickard Rakell (13G, 13A, 3 hard-chance goals, 1.01 xG/60) matches Meier's elite chance creation on fewer points; his 12.1% shooting mirrors Hughes' conversion edge. Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60) occupies the highest chance-per-minute slot but is expected to miss the game.

The defensive weak links are notable: New Jersey's Johnathan Kovacevic and Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones both represent leverage points. Both teams have failed to convert high-danger chances (0% hard-chance and rebound rates), suggesting the game may turn on finishing rather than chance quality.

This is the rarest of regular-season predictions: a game where the model sees no edge and the circumstances reinforce it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 54%

54%

PIT

Model favorite

46%

54%

NJD50PIT

PIT by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 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

NJD← edge

edge →PIT

50.0%51.0%

51.0%50.0%

2.452.66

2.502.55

1.662.45

2.232.12

0.9711.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 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

NJD

4-5-1

-13 GD · 1d rest

PIT

6-4-0

+1 GD · 4d rest

0.971

NJD PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

J. Markstrom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Devils are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Penguins have 3 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

NJD

Expected in goal

J. Markstrom

back-to-back.625 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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

A. Silovs

4 days rest.840 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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

NJD

Timo Meier13G 15A

1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh

Jack Hughes18G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% 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