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

Penguins pull away from the Oilers

The verdict · coin flip

The Penguins won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

PIT 6 · EDM 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:13 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 won 6-2, a scoreline that belied competitive expected goals of 3.40–3.13. The Oilers held 58% of shot attempts (32–23), a decisive possession edge, but generated chances without danger. The gap between metrics and result was entirely variance: Pittsburgh overperformed expected goals by 2.60, while Edmonton underperformed by 1.13.

Goaltending was the chasm. A. Silovs (PIT) stopped 1.1 goals above expected on 30 shots. T. Jarry (EDM) gave up 2.6 more than expected on 23 shots — a severe underperformance despite limited volume. Pittsburgh converted 2 of 5 high-danger chances (40%), clinical in the danger areas. Edmonton was lethal off the rush with 2 goals on 30 chances but couldn't generate quality elsewhere.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 22
PIT
6
EDM
2

Penguins pull away from the Oilers

Chances 3.4 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Penguins took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
3.40
EDM
3.13
52% of the chances48%

The board read PIT 6, EDM 2. The chances read PIT 3.4, EDM 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+2.6
goals above expected
PIT3.40 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM3.13 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins scored 2.6 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 02:20PITA. Mantha1–0
  2. P1 02:42PITA. Mantha2–0
  3. P1 02:57PITS. Crosby3–0
  4. P2 05:19EDMJ. WalmanSH3–1
  5. P2 12:29PITR. RakellPP4–1
  6. P2 14:27PITE. Malkin5–1
  7. P3 02:50PITE. Chinakhov6–1
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
40 shots
6
Final
85 shots
EDM
45 shots
2
PIT attackEDM attack
PIT EDM Goal
40
shots · 6 in
45
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITEDM
2 / 5
1.20 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.01 xG
2 / 15
1.60 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.48 xG
2 / 30
0.60 xG
Low
1 / 38
0.65 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Silovs
+1.1
PIT · 30/32
F
T. Jarry
−2.6
EDM · 17/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins pull away from the Oilers

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. 02:20PITA. Mantha(J. Brazeau, C. Clifton)1–0
  2. 02:42PITA. Mantha(J. Brazeau, B. Kulak)2–0
  3. 02:57PITS. Crosby(R. Shea, J. St. Ivany)3–0
2ndshots 10–10
  1. 05:19EDMJ. Walmanshorthanded(M. Janmark)3–1
  2. 12:29PITR. Rakellpower play(E. Malkin, B. Rust)4–1
  3. 14:27PITE. Malkin5–1
3rdshots 4–10
  1. 02:50PITE. Chinakhov(T. Novak, J. St. Ivany)6–1
  2. 13:57EDMM. Savoie(E. Bouchard, M. Ekholm)6–2

score reads PIT–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.40
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.085
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.7%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.40Expected goals3.13
PIT 52% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal32
5High-danger chances4
50All attempts (Corsi)57
Adjusted for score: PIT 39% · EDM 61%
Faceoffs · EDM won80%off39%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT2 / 5 · 1.20 xG
EDM0 / 4 · 1.01 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT2 / 15 · 1.60 xG
EDM1 / 15 · 1.48 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT2 / 30 · 0.60 xG
EDM1 / 38 · 0.65 xG

PIT went 2-for-30 from low danger on 0.60 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
6 G · 3.40 xG · +2.6
EDM
2 G · 3.13 xG · -1.1
01234567

PIT finished +2.6 against expected, EDM -1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST3/18
SNAP0/2
TIP IN2/8
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND1/5
DEFLECTED0/3
BAT0/0
OTHER0/10
EDM
WRIST2/21
SNAP0/11
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/12
PIT
EDM
Off the rush
6 G on 32
3.04 xG
2 G on 30
2.44 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 2
0.23 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 3-for-18, EDM 2-for-21. PIT scored 6 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 · 30/32 · .938
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium1/151.5+0.5
Low1/380.7-0.3

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

T. Jarry
EDM · 17/23 · .739
-2.6
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium2/151.6-0.4
Low2/300.6-1.4

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
40 shots
6
Final
85 shots
EDM
45 shots
2
PIT attackEDM attack
PIT EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, EDM 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. Malkin
#71 · C · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:02 on ice · +3
J. St. Ivany
#3 · D · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +2
A. Mantha
#39 · R · PIT
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 13:43 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 22
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:11 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 gives Edmonton a 53% win probability in a projected 2.6–2.7 game. That's as close to random as hockey gets.

The gap between these teams is negligible. Pittsburgh's 51.0% xG share nearly matches Edmonton's 52.0%; their Corsi splits sit at an identical 50.0%. The only material difference is unsustainable luck: Edmonton's 0.982 PDO means they're underperforming their underlying play. When that regresses upward, so does their offense.

Edmonton holds a rest advantage at one day off versus Pittsburgh's three, though the benefit cuts both ways—Pittsburgh enters fresher, while Edmonton may edge out the Penguins in the third period if conditioning becomes relevant.

Watch T. Jarry carefully. Playing on a back-to-back raises the question of whether Pittsburgh rides him or turns to a backup.

Penguins. Rickard Rakell carries the offensive load at 1.01 xG/60 with 13 goals and 13 assists on a 12.1% shooting rate, meaning he's converting at a sustainable clip. He'll draw McDavid's attention. Defensively, Caleb Jones is a liability—an island the Oilers can exploit on transitions.

Oilers. Zach Hyman is their front-of-net engine (1.23 xG/60, 14 goals, 13 assists, 13.0% shooting), generating danger through positioning and will. Connor McDavid, predictably, is McDavid—25 goals, 33 assists, 0.92 xG/60, creating points from every conceivable angle. His 13.7% shooting rate has a large sample now; it's real. Defensively, Edmonton's Jake Walman is the weak link.

The absence of high-danger-goal volume from either team suggests this will be decided by special teams and goaltending variance rather than five-on-five dominance. That's another reason this is a coin flip—when the underlying play is this even, random events become the determining factor.

Edmonton's PDO has the furthest to travel upward, but Pittsburgh's rest advantage keeps them in it. Call it the most genuine pick'em of the week.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 53%
53%
EDM
Model favorite
47%
53%
PIT50EDM

EDM by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.6–2.7 EDM; 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 →EDM
51.0%52.0%
50.0%50.0%
2.662.64
2.552.47
2.452.13
2.122.29
1.0120.982

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.982) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PIT
6-2-2
+10 GD · 3d rest
EDM
5-3-2
+12 GD · 1d rest
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • T. Jarry is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Penguins have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
3 days rest.870 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM
Expected in goal
T. Jarry
back-to-back.882 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Keep going

Where to next