Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · NJD at OTT

Senators run the Devils off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 1 · OTT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:28 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 Senators rolled past the Devils 4-1, and the underlying numbers vindicated the scoreboard entirely: Ottawa controlled 69% of 5v5 expected goals (4.31–1.92).

This wasn't a close game at any level. The Senators held 56% of shot attempts (34–27), and the quality gap was even starker: they generated far more dangerous chances, owning 0.080 expected goals per shot versus New Jersey's 0.033. The edge in high-danger chances—nine to three—reflected that dominance.

Shane Pinto's wrist shot from the high slot at 18:41 of the third period marked the turning point.

Where the Devils showed any fight was in their own chance creation. New Jersey generated higher-quality looks than their shot total suggests—they finished with 1.92 expected goals on just 27 attempts. But the goaltending split proved decisive. J. Allen made 30 of 33 saves with a 0.909 save percentage, outperforming expectations by 1.31 goals. L. Ullmark was nearly flawless: 26 of 27 saves at 0.963, plus 0.92 goals over expected.

Ottawa's dominance came from depth and execution. The Senators were lethal off the rush—three goals on 27 rush chances—and their power play was dominant: two goals on five attempts. They crashed the net, creating three rebound opportunities and converting one.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 31
NJD
1
OTT
4

Senators run the Devils off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.9 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
1.92
OTT
4.31
31% of the chances69%

The board read NJD 1, OTT 4. The chances read NJD 1.9, OTT 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−0.3
goals above expected
OTT4.31 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD1.92 expected · 1 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
  1. P1 13:38OTTB. TkachukPP0–1
  2. P1 18:16NJDT. Meier1–1
  3. P3 00:37OTTD. CozensPP1–2
  4. P3 17:53OTTT. Stützle1–3
  5. P3 18:41OTTS. PintoEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
36 shots
1
Final
81 shots
OTT
45 shots
4
NJD attackOTT attack
NJD OTT Goal
36
shots · 1 in
45
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDOTT
0 / 3
0.57 xG
High danger
2 / 9
2.46 xG
0 / 8
0.72 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.25 xG
1 / 47
0.63 xG
Low
1 / 33
0.60 xG

The Devils went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Allen
+1.3
NJD · 30/33
B+
L. Ullmark
+0.9
OTT · 26/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators run the Devils 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 11–9
  1. 13:38OTTB. Tkachukpower play(D. Batherson, T. Stützle)0–1
  2. 18:16NJDT. Meier(C. Glass, C. Brown)1–1
2ndshots 7–12no goals
    3rdshots 9–13
    1. 00:37OTTD. Cozenspower play(B. Tkachuk, J. Sanderson)1–2
    2. 17:53OTTT. Stützle(B. Tkachuk, C. Giroux)1–3
    3. 18:41OTTS. Pintoempty net(M. Amadio, J. Sanderson)1–4

    score reads NJD–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.31
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.057
    OTT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.92Expected goals4.31
    OTT 69% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal34
    3High-danger chances9
    58All attempts (Corsi)54
    Adjusted for score: NJD 53% · OTT 47%
    Faceoffs · OTT won35%off57%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NJD0 / 3 · 0.57 xG
    OTT2 / 9 · 2.46 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NJD0 / 8 · 0.72 xG
    OTT1 / 12 · 1.25 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NJD1 / 47 · 0.63 xG
    OTT1 / 33 · 0.60 xG

    NJD went 0-for-8 from medium danger on 0.72 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NJD
    1 G · 1.92 xG · -0.9
    OTT
    4 G · 4.31 xG · -0.3
    012345

    NJD finished -0.9 against expected, OTT -0.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NJD
    WRIST1/25
    SNAP0/4
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/22
    OTT
    WRIST3/31
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/1
    DEFLECTED1/2
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/9
    NJD
    OTT
    Off the rush
    0 G on 23
    1.54 xG
    3 G on 27
    3.21 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.14 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.44 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 1-for-25, OTT 3-for-31. OTT 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
    J. Allen
    NJD · 30/33 · .909
    +1.3
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.5+0.5
    Medium1/121.3+0.3
    Low1/330.6-0.4

    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

    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 26/27 · .963
    +0.9
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.6+0.6
    Medium0/80.7+0.7
    Low1/470.6-0.4

    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

    81 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NJD
    36 shots
    1
    Final
    81 shots
    OTT
    45 shots
    4
    NJD attackOTT attack
    NJD OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD left, OTT 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. Tkachuk
    #7 · L · OTT
    1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 13:00 on ice
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 26:09 on ice · +2
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 20:27 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Jan 31
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:26 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 the Senators to win at 57% probability, with a final score between 2.3 and 2.7 goals for Ottawa. The edge here isn't a mirage — it's rooted in who controls the game.

    Ottawa owns the underlying play. The Senators generate 56.0% of expected goals at 5v5, while New Jersey manages just 50.0%. That 6-point spread translates to persistent shot quality over a season; it matters more than individual-game variance. The Corsi picture reinforces it: 53.0% for Ottawa against 51.0% for the Devils, a modest but real advantage in puck possession.

    The regression angle cuts the other way. New Jersey's PDO sits at 0.971 — they're running cold, converting fewer goals than their shot quality suggests they should. That's not sustainable. The Senators, meanwhile, operate at 0.993, closer to true talent. When PDO normalizes, the Devils typically improve, but that process takes time, and it's precisely the kind of statistical reversion that live models factor in.

    J. Markstrom faces a back-to-back, which introduces a secondary variable: watch whether he starts or New Jersey deploys a backup. A fatigued starter compounds an already difficult matchup for the Devils.

    The player-level battle hinges on two forwards. Timo Meier is New Jersey's firepower—1.08 expected goals per 60, 13 goals, 15 assists, and 3 high-danger chances despite a modest 6.7% shooting percentage. Jack Hughes trails in volume at 0.88 xG/60 but makes up ground with elite finishing at 11.5%, collecting 18 goals and 17 assists. Brady Tkachuk is Ottawa's counterargument: 1.19 xG/60, 11 goals, 20 assists, and 2 high-danger goals on 7.5% shooting—a more complete threat in terms of volume and efficiency. Dylan Cozens adds support at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals, 15 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and 9.5% shooting.

    Neither team generates high-danger or rebound opportunities at remarkable rates. The Devils' defensive liability surfaces in Johnathan Kovacevic, while Nick Jensen represents a similar pressure point for Ottawa. The game will likely be decided not by goaltending variance but by five-on-five execution—territory control, shot placement, and the willingness to attack the high-danger areas.

    Everything tilts toward Ottawa: better process, regression tailwinds, and superior personnel depth in the scoring roles. The Senators' 57% win probability is the rational read.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 57%
    57%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    NJD50OTT

    OTT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.3–2.7 OTT; 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
    NJD← edge
    edge →OTT
    50.0%56.0%
    51.0%53.0%
    2.452.66
    2.502.12
    1.662.18
    2.231.99
    0.9710.993

    OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    NJD
    6-4-0
    +1 GD · 1d rest
    OTT
    5-3-2
    +9 GD · 2d rest
    0.971
    NJD PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
    • J. Markstrom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    NJD
    Expected in goal
    J. Markstrom
    back-to-back.931 last start
    Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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.

    OTT
    Expected in goal
    J. Reimer
    2 days rest.889 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
    NJD
    Timo Meier13G 15A
    1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
    Jack Hughes18G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next