Backcheck
Recap · NJD at PIT

A. Silovs stands tall as the Penguins edge the Devils

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

By the ModelJul 12, 4:33 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
NJD
New Jersey Devils
1
Home
PIT
Pittsburgh Penguins
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.99Expected goals5.37
57% share for the better side
30Shot attempts (SOG)37
7High-danger chances10
74Corsi (all attempts)62
Score-adjusted: 57% / 43%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Penguins won 4-1, but the Devils had the worse night — they underperformed their 3.99 expected goals by 2.99, scoring just once. Pittsburgh's 5.37 xG translated to four goals, only 1.37 below expected.

A. Silovs was the difference. He stopped 29 of 30 shots (0.967 SV%) and saved 2.99 goals above expected. J. Markstrom saved 2.37 above expected, facing more volume (33 saves on 36 shots), but Pittsburgh's efficiency was relentless.

The Penguins held 55% of shot attempts (37-30 on goal) and 57% of 5v5 expected goals. High-danger chances: Pittsburgh 10, New Jersey 7. The quality gap was wider — Pittsburgh generated 0.087 xG per shot, New Jersey 0.054. Quantity and quality both favored Pittsburgh.

Efficiency in transition sealed it. The Penguins scored twice on 29 rush chances. New Jersey created the same number of rebound opportunities (5) as Pittsburgh (6), but neither team converted any. The difference wasn't effort; it was that Pittsburgh's chances came cleaner, earlier in possession sequences, when goaltenders are vulnerable.

A 2.99-goal underperformance is rare, even with elite goaltending. The Devils wasted quality. Silovs ensured Pittsburgh did not.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD1 / 7 · 1.53 xG
PIT2 / 10 · 2.69 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD0 / 15 · 1.67 xG
PIT1 / 19 · 2.15 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 52 · 0.79 xG
PIT1 / 33 · 0.54 xG

NJD went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.67 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
1 G · 3.99 xG · -3.0
PIT
4 G · 5.37 xG · -1.4
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. MarkstromNJD
+2.4
A. SilovsPIT
+3.0

NJD finished -3.0 against expected, PIT -1.4 — A. Silovs (PIT) saved 3.0 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
WRIST0/40
SNAP0/4
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/23
PIT
WRIST2/33
SNAP0/3
TIP IN1/4
SLAP1/3
BACKHAND0/5
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/13
NJD
PIT
Off the rush
1 G on 33 · 2.86 xG
2 G on 29 · 3.12 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5 · 0.78 xG
0 G on 6 · 1.03 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 0-for-40, PIT 2-for-33. PIT scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
E. Malkin
#71 · C · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 17:38 TOI · +1
J. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:42 TOI · -1
D. Hamilton
#7 · D · NJD
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:10 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • J. Markstrom (NJD) stopped 2.4 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 17 high-danger chances combined (PIT 10, NJD 7).
  • PIT generated far more dangerous chances — 0.087 xG/shot vs 0.054. Quality over quantity.
  • PIT was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 29 rush chances.
  • PIT created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • NJD created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • NJD underperformed xG by 3.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Markstrom (NJD) saved 2.4 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • A. Silovs (PIT) saved 3.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · NJD at PIT · 7:00 PM ET

Devils at Penguins: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 4:32 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

54%
PIT
Model favorite
46%
54%
NJD50PIT

PIT by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.52.7 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

NJD← edge
edge →PIT
50.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
51.0%Corsi%50.0%
2.45xGF / 602.66
2.50xGA / 602.55
1.66Goals for / gm2.45
2.23Goals against / gm2.12
0.971PDO — luck, not skill1.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.971 vs 1.012) says PIT has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects this as a near-perfect toss-up: New Jersey at 2.5–2.7 goals with Pittsburgh holding 54% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as the data allows.

On form, Pittsburgh is the hotter team, sitting 7-1-2 over their last ten games. New Jersey is underwater at minus-10 in goal differential over the same span. But the underlying 5v5 numbers tell a different story: New Jersey's xG% is 50.0% against Pittsburgh's 51.0%, and the Devils lead 51.0% to 50.0% in Corsi%. Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO shows a team running hot; New Jersey's 0.971 PDO shows a team running cold, due for positive regression.

Timo Meier leads the Devils with 13 goals and 15 assists at 1.08 xG/60, though 3 high-danger goals on 6.7% shooting suggests much of his output comes outside the hardest areas. Jack Hughes has 18 goals and 17 assists at 0.88 xG/60 with 1 high-danger goal and 11.5% shooting, a split indicating strong conversion relative to his quality of chance.

Rickard Rakell anchors Pittsburgh with 1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 high-danger goals, and 12.1% shooting. Filip Hallander had led in expected output at 1.28 xG/60 with 0 goals and 3 assists, but is likely out due to IR complications from a conditioning assignment, removing Pittsburgh's most dangerous offensive element.

Johnathan Kovacevic is New Jersey's defensive liability; Caleb Jones is Pittsburgh's. These are where each offense should hunt.

The models have converged on equilibrium, and the underlying numbers support it. This one genuinely could break either way.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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