The Penguins earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The Penguins won 6-5, but the underlying numbers suggest they should have won by more. The Rangers overperformed their expected goals by 2.05, converting chances the math didn't expect them to make.
That's the real story here: Pittsburgh controlled what happened. They held 66% of expected goals (5.70–2.95), 63% of shot attempts (34–20 on goal), and generated lethal rush chances—2 goals off 35 attempts. New York matched that rush efficiency (4 goals on 19 chances) and capitalized on high-danger finishes (3 of 7, 43%), but they shouldn't have been in position to do it.
S. Skinner underperformed by 2.05 goals, allowing 5 when his workload and positioning suggested he should have faced just 2.95 in expected danger. J. Quick made 28 of 33 saves (0.848 SV%, +0.70 vs expected), playing well enough to keep New York in a game Pittsburgh was winning.
Pittsburgh dominated the underlying play. New York got hot when it mattered—especially on the power play (2 goals on 6 shots, 0.72 xG)—and made the scoreboard look tighter than the tape would suggest.
High-danger chances finished tied at 7–7, and Pittsburgh crashed the net effectively, converting 2 of 4 rebound opportunities. But volume tells the real story: the Penguins' 5.70 expected goals against the Rangers' 2.95 is a dominance that a one-goal final doesn't capture.