Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
← Sat, Jan 17 · the slate
Breakdown · CBJ at PIT

Blue Jackets steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Jan 17
CBJColumbus Blue Jackets4PITPittsburgh Penguins3
The verdict · stolen

The Blue Jackets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.28–5.53 and won anyway.

CBJ 4 · PIT 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:18 AMxG: 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's expected-goals advantage was massive—63% to 37%—and it lost anyway. The Penguins held 56% of shot attempts and 10 high-danger chances to Columbus's 7. They still finished 4-3 in a shootout. When control is that lopsided and a team loses, the goaltender won.

E. Merzlikins (CBJ) made 30 saves and overperformed his expected goals by 2.53. He stopped 90% of high-danger chances. A. Silovs (PIT) made 23 saves at an 0.885 save percentage, underperforming his model by 2.5 goals.

The Penguins wasted their possession. They created 7 rebound opportunities and converted none. Pittsburgh was lethal on the rush—3 goals on 38 chances—but not lethal enough. Columbus answered with 2 goals on 24 rush attempts, and that discipline cost Pittsburgh the game.

The shootout hinge was Charlie Coyle. S. Crosby (PIT) had already earned 1 goal and 1 assist in 21:57. Z. Werenski (CBJ) collected 1 assist in 29:18, setting up what mattered most. K. Letang (PIT) added 1 assist in 25:55 but couldn't push Pittsburgh over the line.

This was not a lucky win. It was a heist.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 17
CBJ
4
PIT
3

Blue Jackets steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

Chances 3.3 – 5.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
3.28
PIT
5.53
37% of the chances63%

The board read CBJ 4, PIT 3. The chances read CBJ 3.3, PIT 5.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
+0.7
goals above expected
CBJ3.28 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT5.53 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 2.5 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 02:42CBJZ. Aston-Reese1–0
  2. P1 09:59PITC. Clifton1–1
  3. P1 17:52PITR. Rakell1–2
  4. P2 07:32CBJK. Marchenko2–2
  5. P2 17:38CBJD. Heinen3–2
  6. P3 18:59PITS. CrosbyPP3–3
  7. SO 00:00CBJK. JohnsonPP3–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
43 shots
5
Final
101 shots
PIT
58 shots
4
CBJ attackPIT attack
CBJ PIT Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

43
shots · 5 in
58
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJPIT
1 / 7
1.54 xG
High danger
1 / 10
2.25 xG
2 / 12
1.26 xG
Medium
1 / 27
2.76 xG
0 / 36
0.48 xG
Low
1 / 42
0.52 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 1 of 7, PIT 1 of 10.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
E. Merzlikins
+2.5
CBJ · 30/33
B
A. Silovs
+0.3
PIT · 23/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

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 4–10
  1. 02:42CBJZ. Aston-Reese(Z. Werenski, B. Gaunce)1–0
  2. 09:59PITC. Clifton(T. Novak)1–1
  3. 17:52PITR. Rakell(S. Crosby)1–2
2ndshots 13–8
  1. 07:32CBJK. Marchenko2–2
  2. 17:38CBJD. Heinen(E. Gudbranson, E. Zamula)3–2
3rdshots 7–9
  1. 18:59PITS. Crosbypower play(K. Letang, E. Malkin)3–3
OTshots 2–6no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CBJK. Johnsonpower play3–3
    2. 00:00PITE. Chinakhovpower play3–3
    3. 00:00CBJC. Coylepower play3–3

    score reads CBJ–PIT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.28
    CBJ chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.7
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.017
    CBJ puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    41.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.28Expected goals5.53
    PIT 63% of the chance quality
    26Shots on goal33
    7High-danger chances10
    55All attempts (Corsi)79
    Adjusted for score: CBJ 40% · PIT 60%
    Faceoffs · PIT won67%off61%neu48%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CBJ1 / 7 · 1.54 xG
    PIT1 / 10 · 2.25 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CBJ2 / 12 · 1.26 xG
    PIT1 / 27 · 2.76 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CBJ0 / 36 · 0.48 xG
    PIT1 / 42 · 0.52 xG

    PIT went 1-for-27 from medium danger on 2.76 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CBJ
    4 G · 3.28 xG · +0.7
    PIT
    3 G · 5.53 xG · -2.5
    0123456

    CBJ finished +0.7 against expected, PIT -2.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CBJ
    WRIST2/27
    TIP IN1/7
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    SNAP0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/16
    PIT
    WRIST0/36
    TIP IN1/7
    SLAP0/6
    BACKHAND0/3
    SNAP2/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/24
    CBJ
    PIT
    Off the rush
    2 G on 24
    2.10 xG
    3 G on 38
    3.71 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.23 xG
    0 G on 7
    1.46 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 2-for-27, PIT 0-for-36. 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
    E. Merzlikins
    CBJ · 30/33 · .909
    +2.5
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/102.3+1.3
    Medium1/272.8+1.8
    Low1/420.5-0.5

    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

    A. Silovs
    PIT · 23/26 · .885
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.5+0.5
    Medium2/121.3-0.7
    Low0/360.5+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

    101 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CBJ
    43 shots
    5
    Final
    101 shots
    PIT
    58 shots
    4
    CBJ attackPIT attack
    CBJ PIT Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:57 on ice · +1
    Z. Werenski
    #8 · D · CBJ
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 29:18 on ice · -1
    K. Letang
    #58 · D · PIT
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 25:55 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Jan 17
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:10 AMEdited 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 CBJ 2.6–2.7 game with the Penguins at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    On the underlying play at evens, Columbus has a slim edge. Their 52.0% xG% and 51.0% Corsi% beat Pittsburgh's 51.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%, but marginally. The gap widens only when you account for PDO. Columbus sits at 1.003—results tracking expectation. Pittsburgh is at 1.012, meaning the Penguins have run hotter than their play should allow; both goaltenders and favorable bounces have buoyed them.

    Both S. Skinner and E. Merzlikins are on back-to-backs. Workload management could send a backup in, or ask a starter to push through fatigue. Either way, goaltending is a wildcard.

    Boone Jenner is Columbus's fulcrum. He's hunting at 0.98 xG/60, with 11G and 21A on a 9.6% shooting rate, anchored by 2 high-danger goals. That's high volume from dangerous ice with above-average finish. Mathieu Olivier (0.89 xG/60, 12G, 9A) is shooting at 13.3% but has only 1 high-danger goal, implying his 12 goals have come on lower-danger chances—a sign of luck or opportunism rather than consistent pressure. Pittsburgh fields Rickard Rakell: 1.01 xG/60, 13G, 13A, and 3 high-danger goals at 12.1%. He's generating similar xG/60 to Olivier but finishing at a higher rate, particularly from in close.

    Filip Hallander was recalled from his conditioning loan for evaluation and is out. Even when active, his 1.28 xG/60, 0 goals, and 3 assists mark him as a facilitator without finish.

    Both teams have failed to convert rebound chances or high-danger opportunities outside their primary threats. Columbus and Pittsburgh both sit at 0% on high-danger and rebound goals, suggesting neither team is manufacturing second chances or feeding off hustle plays. Defensively, Conor Garland is Columbus's vulnerability; Caleb Jones is Pittsburgh's. Whoever breaks that secondary-scoring stasis will likely win.

    The 51% split is right. This is even money. Execution matters more than scheme.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 51%
    51%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    CBJ50PIT

    PIT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.7 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
    CBJ← edge
    edge →PIT
    52.0%51.0%
    51.0%50.0%
    2.632.66
    2.432.55
    2.122.45
    1.982.12
    1.0031.012

    CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 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
    CBJ
    5-4-1
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    PIT
    7-2-1
    +16 GD · 1d rest
    1.003
    CBJ 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.
    • E. Merzlikins 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
    CBJ
    Expected in goal
    E. Merzlikins
    back-to-back.968 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.

    PIT
    Expected in goal
    S. Skinner
    back-to-back.912 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
    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
    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