Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · CHI at PIT

Penguins run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Jan 29

CHIChicago Blackhawks2 PITPittsburgh Penguins6

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 2 · PIT 6

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:13 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's 6–2 victory barely contained the Penguins' dominance: they controlled 70 percent of 5v5 expected goals (5.81–2.54), translating that control into a four-goal margin. This wasn't scoreboard luck—it was dominance across every underlying metric.

The depth of Pittsburgh's control was evident in the shot totals: 69 percent of attempts went to the Penguins (45–20 on goal). High-danger chances mirrored the gap, finishing 6–3 in Pittsburgh's favor. On the rush, both teams found their spots (Pittsburgh 2 goals on 42 chances; Chicago 2 on 17), but Pittsburgh's control elsewhere suffocated Chicago into irrelevance.

Net-front play sealed it. Pittsburgh created 7 rebound opportunities, converting zero—a sign of suffocation, not sloppiness. Chicago answered with 4 rebound chances, also blank. Connor Bedard's wrist shot from the high slot was a spark, but by then, Pittsburgh's system had already decided the outcome.

A. Silovs (PIT) was efficient, not tested: 18/20 saves (0.900 SV%, +0.54 vs. expected). A. Soderblom (CHI) faced a deluge: 39/45 saves (0.867 SV%), respectable only by blowout standards.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 29

CHI

PIT

Penguins run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 5.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

2.54

PIT

5.81

30% of the chances70%

The board read CHI 2, PIT 6. The chances read CHI 2.5, PIT 5.8.

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

Luck check

PIT

+0.2

goals above expected

PIT5.81 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.54 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 09:32CHIC. Murphy1–0
P1 11:24PITC. Dewar1–1
P2 05:54PITB. Kindel1–2
P2 15:30PITE. Chinakhov1–3
P2 16:01PITA. Mantha1–4
P2 19:30PITR. Shea1–5
P3 13:59PITC. Dewar1–6

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

31 shots

Final

97 shots

PIT

66 shots

CHI PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHIPIT

0 / 3

0.62 xG

High danger

1 / 6

1.23 xG

1 / 13

1.45 xG

Medium

5 / 32

3.78 xG

1 / 29

0.47 xG

Low

0 / 46

0.80 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

A. Silovs

+0.5

PIT · 18/20

A. Soderblom

−0.2

CHI · 39/45

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 9–8

09:32CHIC. Murphy(R. Greene, F. Nazar)1–0
11:24PITC. Dewar(N. Acciari, B. Lizotte)1–1

2ndshots 6–23

05:54PITB. Kindel(A. Mantha, P. Wotherspoon)1–2
15:30PITE. Chinakhov(E. Malkin)1–3
16:01PITA. Mantha(B. Kindel, R. Shea)1–4
19:30PITR. Shea(I. Solovyov, A. Mantha)1–5

3rdshots 5–14

13:59PITC. Dewar(N. Acciari, B. Lizotte)1–6
14:31CHIC. Bedard(F. Nazar)2–6

score reads CHI–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.81

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.027

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

65.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.54Expected goals5.81

PIT 70% of the chance quality

20Shots on goal45

3High-danger chances6

45All attempts (Corsi)84

Adjusted for score: CHI 38% · PIT 62%

Faceoffs · PIT won68%off42%neu73%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI0 / 3 · 0.62 xG

PIT1 / 6 · 1.23 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI1 / 13 · 1.45 xG

PIT5 / 32 · 3.78 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI1 / 29 · 0.47 xG

PIT0 / 46 · 0.80 xG

PIT went 5-for-32 from medium danger on 3.78 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

2 G · 2.54 xG · -0.5

PIT

6 G · 5.81 xG · +0.2

01234567

CHI finished -0.5 against expected, PIT +0.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

WRIST2/23

TIP IN0/4

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/0

SNAP0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/14

PIT

WRIST4/36

TIP IN0/9

SLAP1/10

BACKHAND1/7

SNAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/18

CHI

PIT

Off the rush

2 G on 17

1.25 xG

2 G on 42

3.37 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.56 xG

0 G on 7

1.12 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-23, PIT 4-for-36. CHI scored 2 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. Soderblom

CHI · 39/45 · .867

-0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.2+0.2

Medium5/323.8-1.2

Low0/460.8+0.8

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 · 18/20 · .900

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium1/131.4+0.5

Low1/290.5-0.5

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

97 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

31 shots

Final

97 shots

PIT

66 shots

CHI PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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

A. Mantha

#39 · R · PIT

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 13:27 on ice · +3

R. Shea

#5 · D · PIT

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:51 on ice · +3

F. Nazar

#91 · C · CHI

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:38 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:12 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 favors Pittsburgh cleanly: Chicago is projected at 2.4 expected goals, the Penguins at 2.9, translating to 60% win probability for Pittsburgh. This isn't mathematical fortune — it rests on three concrete edges.

First, Pittsburgh commands the underlying play. The Penguins generate 51.0% of 5v5 expected goals to Chicago's 42.0%, a nine-point gap that aligns with possession metrics: 50.0% Corsi to the Blackhawks' 46.0%. Recent form confirms this dominance. Pittsburgh has run 6-2-2 in their last ten. Chicago has deteriorated sharply, posting -12 goal differential over the same stretch.

Second, there's the rest asymmetry. The Penguins arrive on four days between games; the Blackhawks on one. That gap accumulates across sixty minutes.

Third, goaltending introduces slippage. S. Knight lands on a back-to-back, creating real ambiguity about whether Pittsburgh faces a tired starter or a cold backup. A fatigued goalie or an unpracticed reserve shifts the leverage further toward the Penguins.

Where does Chicago press back? Its offensive signatures remain intact. Tyler Bertuzzi sustains 0.85 expected goals per sixty and has built 20 goals on an 18.0% shooting rate, with 7 of those in the high-danger zone. Connor Bedard carries 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals, 27 assists, and an 11.8% shooting rate — a clip that can ignite overnight. The Blackhawks manufacture offense, just not volume. Their season PDO sits at 0.996, below neutral, meaning regression has worked against them. Pittsburgh's PDO stands at 1.012, running hot by the same measure.

The Penguins counter with efficiency and structure. Rickard Rakell generates 1.01 xG/60 while posting 13 goals and 13 assists on a 12.1% shooting rate. Filip Hallander carries the highest danger-volume signature at 1.28 xG/60, though he remains unavailable, sidelined for further evaluation after his recall from his conditioning loan.

Pittsburgh need not be brilliant. Competent play, average goaltending, and territorial control will suffice to execute the model's edge. Chicago requires positive variance, a rested opener, and transition efficiency. The model's calculation mirrors these probabilities: Pittsburgh favored substantially, but neither team eliminated by the numbers.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 60%

60%

PIT

Model favorite

40%

60%

CHI50PIT

PIT by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.4–2.9 PIT; 17% 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

CHI← edge

edge →PIT

42.0%51.0%

46.0%50.0%

2.172.66

2.942.55

1.842.45

2.412.12

0.9961.012

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 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

CHI

3-5-2

-12 GD · 1d rest

PIT

6-2-2

+13 GD · 4d rest

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT 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 42.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
S. Knight 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 Blackhawks are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
The Penguins have 3 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

back-to-back.870 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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

S. Skinner

4 days rest.938 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

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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