Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
Breakdown · BUF at NSH

Sabres hold off the Predators

The verdict · stolen

The Sabres stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.30–5.15 and won anyway.

BUF 5 · NSH 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:52 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

The Sabres beat the Predators 5-3 despite posting just 3.30 expected goals to Nashville's 5.15. By that measure, Buffalo had no business winning. Nashville owned 61% of the xG, 51% of shot attempts, and won 7-4 in high-danger chances. This was a heist.

The heist succeeded because of goaltending variance in Buffalo's favor. A. Lyon made 31 saves on 34 shots with a 0.912 save percentage, stopping 2.15 goals above expected. J. Saros, pulled after two periods, saved only 15 of 19 shots (0.789 SV%), surrendering 2.04 more goals than his workload merited. Nashville's backup J. Annunen was flawless in limited work (13 saves, 1.000 SV%, +1.34 vs. expected), but he could only stem the bleeding.

The turning point came with Peyton Krebs's wrist shot from the wing in the third period (18:14). By then, Nashville's possession advantage had failed to generate consistent finishing. The Predators had created nine rebound opportunities and converted none, a sign of their inability to capitalize despite the volume.

Interestingly, both teams were equally lethal off the rush: Buffalo scored 3 goals on 30 rush chances, Nashville 3 on 35. The difference was that Buffalo's other shot types found the net more often; Nashville's didn't.

R. O'Reilly (NSH) led with 2 goals and 1 assist in 20:42. F. Forsberg (NSH) added 1 goal and 2 assists in 19:38. K. Helenius (BUF) countered with 1 goal and 2 assists in 14:43. Nashville played the better hockey. Buffalo won the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 20
BUF
5
NSH
3

Sabres hold off the Predators

Chances 3.3 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
3.30
NSH
5.15
39% of the chances61%

The board read BUF 5, NSH 3. The chances read BUF 3.3, NSH 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+1.7
goals above expected
BUF3.30 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH5.15 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres scored 1.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 08:11BUFN. Ostlund1–0
  2. P1 11:45BUFN. Ostlund2–0
  3. P1 17:24BUFK. Helenius3–0
  4. P2 04:20BUFT. Thompson4–0
  5. P2 10:09NSHR. O'ReillyPP4–1
  6. P2 11:54NSHF. Forsberg4–2
  7. P3 09:30NSHR. O'Reilly4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
39 shots
5
Final
102 shots
NSH
63 shots
3
BUF attackNSH attack
BUF NSH Goal
39
shots · 5 in
63
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFNSH
1 / 4
1.23 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.87 xG
3 / 11
1.32 xG
Medium
1 / 20
2.27 xG
1 / 32
0.75 xG
Low
1 / 56
1.01 xG

High-danger looks: BUF 1 of 4, NSH 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Annunen
+3.3
NSH · 13/13
A
A. Lyon
+2.1
BUF · 31/34
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres hold off the Predators

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 14–8
  1. 08:11BUFN. Ostlund(K. Helenius, R. Dahlin)1–0
  2. 11:45BUFN. Ostlund(K. Helenius, O. Power)2–0
  3. 17:24BUFK. Helenius(P. Krebs)3–0
2ndshots 11–12
  1. 04:20BUFT. Thompson(A. Tuch, J. Doan)4–0
  2. 10:09NSHR. O'Reillypower play(F. Forsberg, B. Skjei)4–1
  3. 11:54NSHF. Forsberg(R. O'Reilly)4–2
3rdshots 8–14
  1. 09:30NSHR. O'Reilly(L. Evangelista, F. Forsberg)4–3
  2. 18:14BUFP. Krebsempty net(M. Samuelsson)5–3

score reads BUF–NSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.30
BUF chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.070
BUF puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
36.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.30Expected goals5.15
NSH 61% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal34
4High-danger chances7
47All attempts (Corsi)83
Adjusted for score: BUF 31% · NSH 70%
Faceoffs · NSH won57%off61%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF1 / 4 · 1.23 xG
NSH1 / 7 · 1.87 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF3 / 11 · 1.32 xG
NSH1 / 20 · 2.27 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF1 / 32 · 0.75 xG
NSH1 / 56 · 1.01 xG

BUF went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.32 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
5 G · 3.30 xG · +1.7
NSH
3 G · 5.15 xG · -2.1
0123456

BUF finished +1.7 against expected, NSH -2.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
WRIST3/24
SNAP1/9
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND1/4
TIP IN0/0
OTHER0/8
NSH
WRIST3/31
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/11
BACKHAND0/7
TIP IN0/9
OTHER0/20
BUF
NSH
Off the rush
3 G on 30
2.06 xG
3 G on 35
2.82 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.34 xG
0 G on 9
1.72 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 3-for-24, NSH 3-for-31. 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
A. Lyon
BUF · 31/34 · .912
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.9+0.9
Medium1/202.3+1.3
Low1/561.0+0.0

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. Annunen
NSH · 13/13 · 1.000
+3.3
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.2+0.2
Medium3/111.3-1.7
Low1/320.8-0.3

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. Saros
NSH · 15/19 · .789
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.2+0.2
Medium3/111.3-1.7
Low1/320.8-0.3

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

102 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BUF
39 shots
5
Final
102 shots
NSH
63 shots
3
BUF attackNSH attack
BUF NSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, NSH 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
R. O'Reilly
#90 · C · NSH
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:42 on ice · +2
F. Forsberg
#9 · L · NSH
1 G · 2 A · 7 SOG · 19:38 on ice · +1
K. Helenius
#94 · C · BUF
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 14:43 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:50 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 2.6-2.6 game with the Predators at 52% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Recent form tilts marginally toward Buffalo. Nashville has posted a -5 goal differential over their last ten, a sign they're struggling to separate from competition even in close games. Buffalo's underlying metrics edge ahead: 50.0% expected goals share to Nashville's 49.0%, and a 49.0% Corsi advantage versus the Predators' 50.0%. There's a caveat, though. Buffalo's 1.020 PDO is running hot; expect some regression there. Nashville's 0.992 PDO tells the opposite story—they've been marginally unlucky and could be due for positive variance.

The goaltending situation adds another layer of uncertainty. U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back, so Buffalo may turn to a backup or field a fatigued starter. That's another tilt toward Nashville.

Players to Watch

Buffalo

  • Jason Zucker: 1.07 xG/60, 14G 14A, 6 HD goals, 15.1% shooting
  • Josh Doan: 1.01 xG/60, 15G 18A, 2 HD goals, 11.5% shooting

Nashville

  • Zachary L'Heureux: 0.85 xG/60, 4G 0A, 1 HD goal, 16.0% shooting
  • Filip Forsberg: 0.80 xG/60, 23G 17A, 4 HD goals, 13.6% shooting

Zucker is Nashville's primary defensive focus; Forsberg is Buffalo's. Jack Quinn is where Buffalo's defense leaks; Jonathan Marchessault fills the same role for Nashville. In a game this close, execution on those assignments determines the margin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NSH 52%
51%
NSH
Model favorite
49%
51%
BUF50NSH

NSH by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.6–2.6 NSH; 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 →NSH
50.0%49.0%
49.0%50.0%
2.552.48
2.552.58
2.351.84
1.902.21
1.0200.992

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.992) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
BUF
6-3-1
+8 GD · 1d rest
NSH
6-4-0
-5 GD · 2d rest
1.020
BUF PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.992
NSH 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
  • U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Predators are underwater at -5 goal differential over 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
back-to-back.931 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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.

NSH
Expected in goal
J. Annunen
2 days rest.806 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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
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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next