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

S. Skinner stands tall as the Penguins edge the Canucks

The verdict · coin flip

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

PIT 3 · VAN 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:33 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 Canucks dominated and lost. They held 56% of shot attempts, carried expected goals 5.15–4.87, and created 9 high-danger chances against Pittsburgh's 10. The Penguins won 3–2 anyway, because S. Skinner made every Canucks miss count.

Skinner finished 30/32 with a 0.938 save percentage, stopping 3.15 goals above expected. He was perfect where it counted — stopping all 9 of Vancouver's high-danger attempts. When a goalie is that sharp, underlying performance becomes irrelevant.

Vancouver's collapse came at the worst moment. The Canucks went 0/9 on their high-danger chances — a drought that won't repeat — while Pittsburgh converted its chances with clinical efficiency, scoring 3 times on 27 rush opportunities. That asymmetry is what separates a close game from a loss.

K. Lankinen (VAN) also performed above expectation with a 0.880 save percentage and 1.87 goals saved above expected. His excellence mattered little against the rush, where Pittsburgh's speed overwhelmed a Canucks defense that, despite creating 8 rebound opportunities, couldn't prevent the breakaways.

Teddy Blueger's deflection from the doorstep proved decisive — a simple play on an open net that summed up the night: Penguins taking what they got, Canucks failing to capitalize on better chances.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 25
PIT
3
VAN
2

S. Skinner stands tall as the Penguins edge the Canucks

Chances 4.9 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Penguins took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
4.87
VAN
5.15
49% of the chances51%

The board read PIT 3, VAN 2. The chances read PIT 4.9, VAN 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
−1.9
goals above expected
PIT4.87 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN5.15 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 3.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 05:24PITE. Malkin1–0
  2. P2 08:41PITB. Kindel2–0
  3. P2 17:22PITB. Kindel3–0
  4. P3 06:29VANJ. DeBrusk3–1
  5. P3 14:00VANT. Blueger3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
42 shots
3
Final
94 shots
VAN
52 shots
2
PIT attackVAN attack
PIT VAN Goal
42
shots · 3 in
52
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITVAN
1 / 10
2.67 xG
High danger
0 / 9
2.04 xG
1 / 15
1.70 xG
Medium
2 / 21
2.43 xG
1 / 31
0.51 xG
Low
0 / 38
0.68 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 9 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Skinner
+3.1
PIT · 30/32
A
K. Lankinen
+1.9
VAN · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

S. Skinner stands tall as the Penguins edge the Canucks

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 8–8no goals
    2ndshots 13–10
    1. 05:24PITE. Malkin(T. Novak, E. Chinakhov)1–0
    2. 08:41PITB. Kindel(R. Shea, A. Mantha)2–0
    3. 17:22PITB. Kindel(J. Brazeau, B. Kulak)3–0
    3rdshots 4–14
    1. 06:29VANJ. DeBrusk(E. Pettersson, E. Kane)3–1
    2. 14:00VANT. Blueger(L. Ohgren, F. Hronek)3–2

    score reads PIT–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.87
    PIT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.9
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.024
    PIT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    45.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.87Expected goals5.15
    VAN 51% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal32
    10High-danger chances9
    56All attempts (Corsi)68
    Adjusted for score: PIT 41% · VAN 59%
    Faceoffs · VAN won50%off40%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PIT1 / 10 · 2.67 xG
    VAN0 / 9 · 2.04 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PIT1 / 15 · 1.70 xG
    VAN2 / 21 · 2.43 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PIT1 / 31 · 0.51 xG
    VAN0 / 38 · 0.68 xG

    VAN went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.04 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PIT
    3 G · 4.87 xG · -1.9
    VAN
    2 G · 5.15 xG · -3.1
    0123456

    PIT finished -1.9 against expected, VAN -3.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PIT
    WRIST1/16
    TIP IN1/6
    SLAP1/8
    SNAP0/6
    BACKHAND0/5
    DEFLECTED0/1
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/14
    VAN
    WRIST0/19
    TIP IN0/9
    SLAP0/6
    SNAP0/4
    BACKHAND1/5
    DEFLECTED1/7
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/16
    PIT
    VAN
    Off the rush
    3 G on 27
    3.02 xG
    1 G on 32
    2.79 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.42 xG
    1 G on 8
    1.46 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 1-for-16, VAN 0-for-19. 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
    S. Skinner
    PIT · 30/32 · .938
    +3.1
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/92.0+2.0
    Medium2/212.4+0.4
    Low0/380.7+0.7

    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

    K. Lankinen
    VAN · 22/25 · .880
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/102.7+1.7
    Medium1/151.7+0.7
    Low1/310.5-0.5

    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

    94 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PIT
    42 shots
    3
    Final
    94 shots
    VAN
    52 shots
    2
    PIT attackVAN attack
    PIT VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, VAN 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
    B. Kindel
    #81 · C · PIT
    2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 13:28 on ice · +2
    F. Hronek
    #17 · D · VAN
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 26:57 on ice · +2
    B. Kulak
    #77 · D · PIT
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:04 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Jan 25
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:32 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 says 2.7-2.5, Pittsburgh at 54%. This is a coin flip.

    Pittsburgh has been the hotter team, going 6-2-2 in their last 10 games as Vancouver sits -25 in goal differential over the same span. But the deeper metric matters more: Pittsburgh controls 51.0% expected goals at 5v5 versus 44.0%, and lead 50.0% to 46.0% in Corsi. That territorial edge doesn't lie.

    Vancouver's only leverage is their PDO. At 0.974, they're running cold and due for regression—positive variance in the form of better goaltending luck. If that starts tonight, the game tightens fast.

    K. Lankinen plays on consecutive nights, a risk factor that bears watching.

    The personnel story: Filip Hallander was Pittsburgh's engine at 1.28 xG/60 but is likely out for further evaluation. Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13G 13A, 3 high-danger goals, 12.1% shooting) becomes the focal point. Vancouver counters with Filip Chytil (1.03 xG/60, 3G, 1 high-danger goal, 15.0% shooting) and Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 high-danger goals, 11.8% shooting).

    Defensively, Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones is the softer link; Vancouver's is Victor Mancini. Both teams sit at 0% on high-danger and rebound goals—a statistical anomaly that points to variance, not skill, dictating special-situations scoring.

    The edge goes to Pittsburgh, but narrowly. The regression risk is real for Vancouver. In a matchup this balanced, randomness rules.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 54%
    54%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    54%
    46%
    PIT50VAN

    PIT by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.7–2.5 VAN; 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 →VAN
    51.0%44.0%
    50.0%46.0%
    2.662.22
    2.552.81
    2.451.60
    2.122.56
    1.0120.974

    PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.974) 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
    +13 GD · 2d rest
    VAN
    1-9-0
    -25 GD · 1d rest
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Penguins are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
    • The Canucks are underwater at -25 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    PIT
    Expected in goal
    A. Silovs
    2 days rest.938 last start
    Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    VAN
    Expected in goal
    K. Lankinen
    back-to-back.792 last start
    Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
    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
    VAN
    Filip Chytil3G 0A
    1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Drew O'Connor13G 11A
    0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next