Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater

Breakdown · OTT at PIT

Senators run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Feb 2

OTTOttawa Senators3 PITPittsburgh Penguins2

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · PIT 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:44 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

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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 2

OTT

PIT

Senators run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.5 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

OTT

5.45

PIT

2.41

69% of the chances31%

The board read OTT 3, PIT 2. The chances read OTT 5.5, PIT 2.4.

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

Luck check

OTT

−2.5

goals above expected

OTT5.45 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT2.41 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 07:57PITE. Chinakhov0–1
P2 01:35OTTM. Amadio1–1
P3 06:46OTTT. Stützle2–1
P3 08:48PITT. Novak2–2
P3 14:52OTTC. Giroux3–2

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

Where the shots came from

OTT

49 shots

Final

75 shots

PIT

26 shots

OTT PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

OTTPIT

0 / 6

2.06 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.86 xG

3 / 25

2.91 xG

Medium

1 / 10

1.17 xG

0 / 35

0.49 xG

Low

0 / 26

0.39 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 0 of 6, PIT 1 of 3.

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

In the net

A. Silovs

+2.5

PIT · 28/31

L. Ullmark

+0.4

OTT · 14/16

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Senators run the Penguins 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 13–7

07:57PITE. Chinakhov(E. Malkin, P. Wotherspoon)0–1

2ndshots 9–3

01:35OTTM. Amadio(T. Kleven, S. Pinto)1–1

3rdshots 9–6

06:46OTTT. Stützle(D. Batherson, J. Spence)2–1
08:48PITT. Novak(R. Shea, E. Chinakhov)2–2
14:52OTTC. Giroux(T. Stützle, D. Batherson)3–2

score reads OTT–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.45

OTT chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.5

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.994

OTT puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

62.9%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.45Expected goals2.41

OTT 69% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal16

6High-danger chances3

66All attempts (Corsi)39

Adjusted for score: OTT 63% · PIT 37%

Faceoffs · PIT won44%off36%neu56%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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

OTT finished -2.5 against expected, PIT -0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

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

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

L. Ullmark

OTT · 14/16 · .875

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.9-0.1

Medium1/101.2+0.2

Low0/260.4+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

A. Silovs

PIT · 28/31 · .903

+2.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/62.1+2.1

Medium3/252.9-0.1

Low0/350.5+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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

OTT

49 shots

Final

75 shots

PIT

26 shots

OTT PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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

T. Stützle

#18 · C · OTT

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:46 on ice · +2

D. Batherson

#19 · R · OTT

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:12 on ice · +2

E. Chinakhov

#59 · R · PIT

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 12:12 on ice

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, 3:41 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

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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 52%

52%

OTT

Model favorite

52%

48%

OTT50PIT

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

OTT← edge

edge →PIT

56.0%51.0%

53.0%50.0%

2.662.66

2.122.55

2.182.45

1.992.12

0.9931.012

OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 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

OTT

6-2-2

+13 GD · 1d rest

PIT

7-1-2

+16 GD · 2d rest

0.993

OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
L. Ullmark is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

OTT

Expected in goal

L. Ullmark

back-to-back.963 last start

Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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

2 days rest.750 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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page