Backcheck
Recap · OTT at PIT

Senators run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 3:44 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
OTT
Ottawa Senators
3
Home
PIT
Pittsburgh Penguins
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

5.45Expected goals2.41
69% share for the better side
31Shot attempts (SOG)16
6High-danger chances3
66Corsi (all attempts)39
Score-adjusted: 63% / 37%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Ottawa's 3-2 victory reflects genuine dominance—the Senators controlled 69% of expected goals (5.45–2.41)—yet they underperformed their own metrics by 2.45 goals. The win was real, but it required Pittsburgh's inability to finish.

The shot battle was one-sided. Pittsburgh attempted 16 shots to Ottawa's 31, holding just 34% of attempts. The quality gap widened: the Senators generated 0.083 xG per shot compared to Pittsburgh's 0.062. Ottawa's superiority was structural, not random.

But the Senators only scored three goals on 5.45 expected, managing 0 for 6 on high-danger chances. Pittsburgh's goaltending—not structure—kept the game competitive. A. Silovs made 28 saves on 31 attempts, exceeding expected save percentage by 2.45 goals and stopping all six high-danger chances.

The Penguins crashed the net effectively, converting 1 of 3 rebound opportunities. Ottawa did that work better—2 of 4—but Silovs' wall on premium looks forced the Senators to earn the win through volume.

Claude Giroux's deflection from the doorstep (P3, 14:52) broke the tie and stood up as the winner. L. Ullmark's 14 saves on 16 shots were competent. Silovs stole the game with his elite performance, denying Ottawa the dominant win their underlying numbers earned.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT0 / 6 · 2.06 xG
PIT1 / 3 · 0.86 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT3 / 25 · 2.91 xG
PIT1 / 10 · 1.17 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 35 · 0.49 xG
PIT0 / 26 · 0.39 xG

OTT went 0-for-6 from high danger on 2.06 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 5.45 xG · -2.5
PIT
2 G · 2.41 xG · -0.4
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
L. UllmarkOTT
+0.4
A. SilovsPIT
+2.5

OTT finished -2.5 against expected, PIT -0.4 — A. Silovs (PIT) saved 2.5 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST1/31
TIP IN0/8
BACKHAND1/4
SNAP0/4
SLAP0/1
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/17
PIT
WRIST2/16
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/1
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/13
OTT
PIT
Off the rush
1 G on 32 · 3.36 xG
1 G on 16 · 1.37 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 4 · 0.54 xG
1 G on 3 · 0.72 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-31, PIT 2-for-16.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
T. Stützle
#18 · C · OTT
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:46 TOI · +2
D. Batherson
#19 · R · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:12 TOI · +2
E. Chinakhov
#59 · R · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 12:12 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • A. Silovs (PIT) stopped 2.5 goals above expected.
  • OTT had the higher quality looks — 0.083 xG/shot vs 0.062.
  • OTT couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • PIT created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • OTT created 4 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • OTT underperformed xG by 2.5 — wasted quality chances.
  • A. Silovs (PIT) saved 2.5 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • A. Silovs was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 6 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · OTT at PIT · 7:00 PM ET

Senators at Penguins: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 3:41 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
OTT
Model favorite
52%
48%
OTT50PIT

OTT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.62.5 PIT; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

OTT← edge
edge →PIT
56.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
53.0%Corsi%50.0%
2.66xGF / 602.66
2.12xGA / 602.55
2.18Goals for / gm2.45
1.99Goals against / gm2.12
0.993PDO — luck, not skill1.012

OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.993 vs 1.012) says PIT has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

This matchup is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects 2.6–2.5 in Ottawa's favor with the Senators at 52% win probability.

The Senators' edge lies in underlying play: 56.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsi at 5v5 suggest they'll control territory and generate higher-danger chances. Pittsburgh, meanwhile, is running a 1.012 PDO against Ottawa's 0.993, converting at a clip above what their play warrants.

The skater battles tilt Ottawa's way. Brady Tkachuk generates 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals, 20 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and a 7.5% shooting rate. Dylan Cozens contributes 1.00 xG/60, 13 goals, 15 assists, and a 9.5% clip. Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 high-danger goals, 12.1% shooting) offers serious counter-punch. Filip Hallander, at 1.28 xG/60, is out on injured reserve.

L. Ullmark faces the back-to-back for Ottawa. Fatigue or a backup start could become Pittsburgh's advantage.

Both teams record 0% of their goals from high-danger or rebound situations. Nick Jensen represents Ottawa's defensive vulnerability; Caleb Jones represents Pittsburgh's.

This leaves the game to possession and conversions: Ottawa's marginal territorial edge against Pittsburgh's above-par shooting.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters