Backcheck
Recap · BUF at NJD

U. Luukkonen stands tall as the Sabres edge the Devils

The Sabres won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 12, 4:22 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
BUF
Buffalo Sabres
2
Home
NJD
New Jersey Devils
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.64Expected goals3.94
52% share for the better side
30Shot attempts (SOG)28
7High-danger chances7
59Corsi (all attempts)57
Score-adjusted: 48% / 52%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Buffalo won 2–1 despite New Jersey's superior shot quality. The Devils' expected goals of 3.94 exceeded the Sabres' 3.64; U. Luukkonen's 27 saves on 28 shots (0.964 SV%, stopping 2.94 goals above expected) closed the gap.

The Devils held fewer shot attempts (28 to 30) while maintaining quality. High-danger chances split evenly at 7–7. Yet precision and variance conspired: New Jersey underperformed its expected goals by 2.94, squandering a favorable underlying matchup.

Buffalo's efficiency was surgical. The Sabres generated 28 rush chances and converted 2—a proportion New Jersey's 7 rush attempts couldn't approach. The Devils crashed the net effectively for 3 rebound opportunities and scored once. Buffalo created 4 rebounds with no conversions. Timo Meier's wrist shot from the doorstep at 17:30 of the third captured the quality New Jersey generated, yet it arrived too late.

J. Allen's 28 saves on 30 shots (0.933 SV%, +1.64 above expected) represented excellent goaltending overshadowed by Luukkonen's brilliance. The Devils' inability to convert their xG advantage proved decisive.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF2 / 7 · 1.66 xG
NJD1 / 7 · 1.79 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF0 / 12 · 1.26 xG
NJD0 / 15 · 1.61 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF0 / 40 · 0.72 xG
NJD0 / 35 · 0.54 xG

NJD went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.61 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
2 G · 3.64 xG · -1.6
NJD
1 G · 3.94 xG · -2.9
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
U. LuukkonenBUF
+2.9
J. AllenNJD
+1.6

BUF finished -1.6 against expected, NJD -2.9 — U. Luukkonen (BUF) saved 2.9 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
WRIST2/27
SLAP0/8
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/1
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/13
NJD
WRIST1/26
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/4
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/11
BUF
NJD
Off the rush
2 G on 28 · 2.63 xG
0 G on 31 · 3.12 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4 · 0.58 xG
1 G on 3 · 0.43 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 2-for-27, NJD 1-for-26. BUF scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
T. Thompson
#72 · C · BUF
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:19 TOI · +2
P. Krebs
#19 · C · BUF
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 13:41 TOI · +2
B. Byram
#4 · D · BUF
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:08 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • U. Luukkonen (BUF) stopped 2.9 goals above expected.
  • BUF was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 28 rush chances.
  • NJD created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BUF created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • NJD underperformed xG by 2.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • BUF underperformed xG by 1.6 — wasted quality chances.
  • U. Luukkonen (BUF) saved 2.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • J. Allen (NJD) saved 1.6 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · BUF at NJD · 7:00 PM ET

Sabres at Devils: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 4:21 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
NJD
Model favorite
48%
52%
BUF50NJD

NJD by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.52.6 NJD; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

BUF← edge
edge →NJD
50.0%5v5 xG%50.0%
49.0%Corsi%51.0%
2.55xGF / 602.45
2.55xGA / 602.50
2.35Goals for / gm1.66
1.90Goals against / gm2.23
1.020PDO — luck, not skill0.971

The season numbers split 33 — no clear process edge — and PDO (1.020 vs 0.971) says BUF has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.5- to 2.6-goal game with the Devils at 52% to win—essentially a coin flip.

Buffalo has the form edge: 6-3-1 in their last ten offers genuine momentum. New Jersey sits at -10 on goal differential over the same stretch, a sign they're bleeding expected value. But neither team dominates at 5v5. Both own 50.0% expected goals share. Corsi is nearly even at 49.0% versus 51.0%. The real story lives in PDO.

Buffalo's 1.020 PDO shows they're running hot—results exceed underlying play. New Jersey's 0.971 signals misfortune: they're unlucky. Both teams gravitate back toward neutral over time. That tension defines this game. Buffalo could regress; New Jersey could explode upward.

Players to Watch

  • Jason Zucker (BUF) — 1.07 xG/60, 14 goals, 14 assists, six high-danger goals, 15.1% shooting
  • Josh Doan (BUF) — 1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, 18 assists, two high-danger goals, 11.5% shooting
  • Timo Meier (NJD) — 1.08 xG/60, 13 goals, 15 assists, three high-danger goals, 6.7% shooting
  • Jack Hughes (NJD) — 0.88 xG/60, 18 goals, 17 assists, one high-danger goal, 11.5% shooting

The matchup distilled: Buffalo fields two consistent, high-volume threats. New Jersey counters with elite underlying production from Meier and unsustainable goal conversion from Hughes. One team's anomaly ends tonight. Afterward, it will seem inevitable. It isn't.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters