Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · PIT at BUF

Penguins pull away from the Sabres

FinalThu, Feb 5

PITPittsburgh Penguins5 BUFBuffalo Sabres2

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 5 · BUF 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:15 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 matched Pittsburgh in high-danger chances (10 each) but lost 5-2. The difference was shot quality—Pittsburgh's 0.102 xG/shot versus Buffalo's 0.075—amplified by goaltending: A. Silovs (PIT) at +2.49 vs. expected, A. Lyon (BUF) at +1.53.

Buffalo held 46% of shot attempts (27 to 32), close enough to suggest parity. Yet they underperformed their expected goals by 2.49, scoring 2 times on 4.49 xG. They went 0 for 10 in high-danger chances, a conversion failure more extreme than variance alone. Pittsburgh, conversely, netted 4 times on 28 rush attempts and dominated the shooting percentages from inside.

Ben Kindel (PIT) scored at 19:46 of the third period on a snap shot from the slot, a critical goal late that shifted momentum. A. Hayes (PIT) scored 2 goals in 10:09, adding to Pittsburgh's superior conversion rate.

Buffalo's A. Lyon saved 1.53 goals above expected (0.871 SV%), yet fell short against Pittsburgh's superior shot quality. The Sabres scored both their goals from low-danger chances—the kind of deficit a well-coached defense must eliminate. R. Dahlin (BUF) recorded 1 assist in 26:32, present but unable to swing the balance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 5

PIT

BUF

Penguins pull away from the Sabres

Chances 5.5 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PIT

5.53

BUF

4.49

55% of the chances45%

The board read PIT 5, BUF 2. The chances read PIT 5.5, BUF 4.5.

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

Luck check

PIT

−0.5

goals above expected

PIT5.53 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF4.49 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Sabres left 2.5 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 01:46BUFJ. Zucker0–1
P1 09:18PITA. Hayes1–1
P1 18:47PITA. Hayes2–1
P2 07:44PITB. Kindel3–1
P3 01:55BUFT. ThompsonPP3–2
P3 15:33PITT. Novak4–2
P3 19:46PITB. KindelEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

PIT

43 shots

Final

92 shots

BUF

49 shots

PIT BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PITBUF

2 / 10

3.40 xG

High danger

0 / 10

2.39 xG

2 / 13

1.51 xG

Medium

0 / 13

1.29 xG

1 / 31

0.61 xG

Low

2 / 37

0.81 xG

The Sabres went 0 for 10 from the slot.

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

In the net

A. Silovs

+2.5

PIT · 25/27

A. Lyon

+1.5

BUF · 27/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins pull away from the Sabres

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 10–8

01:46BUFJ. Zucker(R. McLeod, B. Byram)0–1
09:18PITA. Hayes(I. Solovyov, R. McGroarty)1–1
18:47PITA. Hayes(A. Mantha, P. Wotherspoon)2–1

2ndshots 7–9

07:44PITB. Kindel3–1

3rdshots 15–10

01:55BUFT. Thompsonpower play(J. Quinn, R. Dahlin)3–2
15:33PITT. Novak(E. Chinakhov, E. Malkin)4–2
19:46PITB. Kindelempty net(C. Dewar)5–2

score reads PIT–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.53

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.5

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.059

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

47.4%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.53Expected goals4.49

PIT 55% of the chance quality

32Shots on goal27

10High-danger chances10

54All attempts (Corsi)60

Adjusted for score: PIT 44% · BUF 56%

Faceoffs · BUF won55%off48%neu60%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PIT2 / 10 · 3.40 xG

BUF0 / 10 · 2.39 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PIT2 / 13 · 1.51 xG

BUF0 / 13 · 1.29 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PIT1 / 31 · 0.61 xG

BUF2 / 37 · 0.81 xG

BUF went 0-for-10 from high danger on 2.39 expected goals — 2.4 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PIT

5 G · 5.53 xG · -0.5

BUF

2 G · 4.49 xG · -2.5

0123456

PIT finished -0.5 against expected, BUF -2.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PIT

WRIST1/3

SNAP3/25

TIP IN0/8

BACKHAND1/4

SLAP0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/11

BUF

WRIST2/37

SNAP0/1

TIP IN0/8

BACKHAND0/1

SLAP0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/11

PIT

BUF

Off the rush

4 G on 28

3.03 xG

2 G on 37

3.58 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.56 xG

0 G on 1

0.05 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 1-for-3, BUF 2-for-37. PIT scored 4 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. Silovs

PIT · 25/27 · .926

+2.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/102.4+2.4

Medium0/131.3+1.3

Low2/370.8-1.2

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. Lyon

BUF · 27/31 · .871

+1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/103.4+1.4

Medium2/131.5-0.5

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PIT

43 shots

Final

92 shots

BUF

49 shots

PIT BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, BUF 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. Kindel

#81 · C · PIT

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 17:27 on ice · +2

A. Hayes

#85 · R · PIT

2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 10:09 on ice · +2

R. Dahlin

#26 · D · BUF

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 26:32 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Feb 5

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:13 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 a 2.6–2.7 game with Buffalo at 51% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Both teams converge on even possession metrics. Pittsburgh shows 51.0% expected goals and 50.0% Corsi at 5v5; Buffalo counters with 50.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi. Neither team is driving play.

The Sabres have capitalized on that even possession. Their PDO sits at 1.020 versus Pittsburgh's 1.012—a gap that signals Buffalo has earned efficiency bounces, both of which tend to regress.

Both teams face backup-start questions. C. Ellis and S. Skinner are on back-to-back nights, introducing goaltending uncertainty for both sides.

Rickard Rakell leads Pittsburgh's offensive arsenal with 13 goals, 13 assists, and a 12.1% shooting rate; he's producing 1.01 expected goals per 60 and has three high-danger goals to show for it. Filip Hallander has generated 1.28 xG/60 but has zero goals and three assists—and faces an uncertain status, recently recalled for further evaluation and testing.

For Buffalo, Jason Zucker (14G, 14A, 1.07 xG/60, 15.1% shooting) and Josh Doan (15G, 18A, 1.01 xG/60, 11.5% shooting) carry the offensive weight. Zucker has converted six high-danger chances; Doan two.

Both defenses present matchup vulnerabilities. Caleb Jones anchors Pittsburgh's back line; Jack Quinn does the same for Buffalo. Neither unit is particularly adept at limiting second chances or clean entries.

The fundamentals say this is even: two teams with identical possession metrics and minimal structural edge, each counting on goaltending and whether luck holds. Buffalo's PDO advantage will likely regress. It's a genuine coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 51%

51%

BUF

Model favorite

49%

51%

PIT50BUF

BUF by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.6–2.7 BUF; 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

PIT← edge

edge →BUF

51.0%50.0%

50.0%49.0%

2.662.55

2.552.55

2.452.35

2.121.90

1.0121.020

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PIT

7-1-2

+16 GD · 1d rest

BUF

6-2-2

+12 GD · 1d rest

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

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

Things to watch

C. Ellis is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PIT

Expected in goal

S. Skinner

back-to-back.783 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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.

BUF

Expected in goal

C. Ellis

back-to-back.886 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.

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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page