Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · BUF at FLA

Sabres hold off the Panthers

FinalMon, Feb 2

The verdict · stolen

The Sabres stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.28–5.07 and won anyway.

BUF 5 · FLA 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:06 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

Buffalo won 5–3 despite being outshot and underdog on raw chances — a reversal the underlying numbers predicted, then the Sabres' goaltender refused.

The Panthers held 68% of shot attempts and a modest expected-goals edge (5.07 to 4.28), plus the high-danger advantage (9 chances to 7). By the numbers, this was even, maybe slightly Florida. But A. Lyon stopped the bleeding. He finished +2.07 against his xG model — the kind of margin that wins games against the run of play.

S. Bobrovsky saw the same volume in net and did the opposite. He surrendered 0.72 goals more than his xG suggested, leaving the Panthers to chase a two-goal deficit they never closed.

Both teams found their lethality off the rush. Buffalo converted at a higher clip (5 goals on 23 chances; Florida 2 on 34), the difference between precision and volume. Josh Doan's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 17:51) punctuated it.

By chance quality, Buffalo was sharper (0.087 xG per shot versus 0.063). Florida crashed the net and created three rebound looks, converted none. Buffalo did the same — also zero. The rebounds didn't swing it; the goaltending did.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 2

BUF

FLA

Sabres hold off the Panthers

Chances 4.3 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

4.28

FLA

5.07

46% of the chances54%

The board read BUF 5, FLA 3. The chances read BUF 4.3, FLA 5.1.

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

Luck check

BUF

+0.7

goals above expected

BUF4.28 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA5.07 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers left 2.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 00:37FLAS. Vilmanis0–1
P1 05:54FLAE. Rodrigues0–2
P1 15:03BUFT. Thompson1–2
P1 18:26BUFP. Krebs2–2
P2 05:44BUFZ. Benson3–2
P2 18:59FLAU. BalinskisPP3–3
P3 05:31BUFJ. ZuckerPP4–3

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

36 shots

Final

95 shots

FLA

59 shots

BUF FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFFLA

1 / 7

2.51 xG

High danger

1 / 9

2.08 xG

3 / 11

1.21 xG

Medium

2 / 21

2.29 xG

1 / 31

0.56 xG

Low

0 / 51

0.70 xG

High-danger looks: BUF 1 of 7, FLA 1 of 9.

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

In the net

A. Lyon

+2.1

BUF · 39/42

S. Bobrovsky

−0.7

FLA · 15/20

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres hold off the Panthers

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 8–9

00:37FLAS. Vilmanis(A. Greer, N. Mikkola)0–1
05:54FLAE. Rodrigues(S. Reinhart, T. Bjornfot)0–2
15:03BUFT. Thompson(P. Krebs, R. Dahlin)1–2
18:26BUFP. Krebs(R. Dahlin, A. Tuch)2–2

2ndshots 6–19

05:44BUFZ. Benson(R. McLeod, O. Power)3–2
18:59FLAU. Balinskispower play(S. Reinhart, C. Verhaeghe)3–3

3rdshots 6–14

05:31BUFJ. Zuckerpower play(J. Doan, J. Quinn)4–3
17:51BUFJ. Doan(P. Krebs, R. McLeod)5–3

score reads BUF–FLA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.28

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.065

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

37.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.28Expected goals5.07

FLA 54% of the chance quality

20Shots on goal42

7High-danger chances9

49All attempts (Corsi)81

Adjusted for score: BUF 37% · FLA 63%

Faceoffs · FLA won83%off43%neu32%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF1 / 7 · 2.51 xG

FLA1 / 9 · 2.08 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF3 / 11 · 1.21 xG

FLA2 / 21 · 2.29 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF1 / 31 · 0.56 xG

FLA0 / 51 · 0.70 xG

BUF went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.21 expected goals — 1.8 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

5 G · 4.28 xG · +0.7

FLA

3 G · 5.07 xG · -2.1

0123456

BUF finished +0.7 against expected, FLA -2.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

SNAP1/18

WRIST3/7

BACKHAND1/5

TIP IN0/3

SLAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/13

FLA

SNAP1/44

WRIST2/4

BACKHAND0/4

TIP IN0/4

SLAP0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/22

BUF

FLA

Off the rush

5 G on 23

1.85 xG

2 G on 34

3.29 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.47 xG

0 G on 3

0.51 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-18, FLA 1-for-44. BUF scored 5 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. Lyon

BUF · 39/42 · .929

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.1+1.1

Medium2/212.3+0.3

Low0/510.7+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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 15/20 · .750

-0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/72.5+1.5

Medium3/111.2-1.8

Low1/310.6-0.4

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

95 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

36 shots

Final

95 shots

FLA

59 shots

BUF FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, FLA 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

P. Krebs

#19 · C · BUF

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:27 on ice · +2

S. Reinhart

#13 · C · FLA

0 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 24:41 on ice · -1

R. Dahlin

#26 · D · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:54 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Feb 2

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:38 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 can barely pick a winner. With the Panthers at 52% win probability and expected goals hovering near 2.5 to 2.6, this is as close to a pick'em as hockey offers.

Buffalo arrives hot. The Sabres have gone 7-2-1 in their last 10, but their season-long 5v5 profile tells a different story. At 50.0% expected goals percentage and 49.0% Corsi, they rank among the league's middle tier. What's moved the needle is luck: their 1.020 PDO means they're finishing beyond what their shot profile predicts. That PDO declines—it always does.

Florida controls territory. The Panthers' 52.0% Corsi signals sustained possession edge, the kind that compounds into chances. Yet their 0.989 PDO reveals underperformance—they're generating quality looks they haven't fully capitalized on. By the underlying metrics, this team should feel more confident than its record.

A. Lyon sits on a back-to-back, introducing uncertainty. Whether Florida goes with a backup or plays a starter running on fumes, the advantage shifts Buffalo's way.

Jason Zucker drives Buffalo's attack at 1.07 expected goals per 60, posting 14 goals and 14 assists with 6 high-danger chances. Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, 18 assists) operates in Zucker's shadow—fewer chances, higher offensive productivity. Sam Bennett anchors Florida at 0.97 xG/60 with 18 goals, 19 assists, and 6 high-danger opportunities. Brad Marchand rounds out their forward line at 0.93 xG/60 with 17 goals and 9 assists. His 19.5% shooting rate towers above Bennett's 13.1%—elite finish or reversion risk remains unclear.

The underlying numbers favor Florida. Momentum favors Buffalo. That's as close as these things get.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 52%

52%

FLA

Model favorite

48%

52%

BUF50FLA

FLA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.6 FLA; 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

BUF← edge

edge →FLA

50.0%49.0%

49.0%52.0%

2.552.48

2.552.56

2.351.98

1.902.21

1.0200.989

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.989) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

7-2-1

+16 GD · 1d rest

FLA

5-5-0

-4 GD · 2d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
A. Lyon is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (7-2-1 in their last 10).
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

back-to-back.900 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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.

FLA

Expected in goal

S. Bobrovsky

2 days rest.905 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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

BUF

Jason Zucker14G 14A

1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh

Josh Doan15G 18A

1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page