Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
← Fri, Feb 27 · the slate
Breakdown · BUF at FLA

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres edge the Panthers

FinalFri, Feb 27
BUFBuffalo Sabres3FLAFlorida Panthers2
The verdict · earned

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

BUF 3 · FLA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:44 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

The Panthers generated 4.28 expected goals but scored only 2—a 2.28-goal shortfall that decided the game. The Sabres, who won 3–2, also underperformed their 4.99 xG (by 1.99 goals), but A. Lyon's exceptional goaltending saved Buffalo when it mattered most.

The expected-goals split barely favored Buffalo, yet the Sabres controlled high-danger chances 8–6. The Panthers held 44% of shot attempts (30–39 on goal), keeping the game tight despite that statistical deficit.

Lyon finished 28 saves on 29 shots (0.966 SV%), outperforming expected save percentage by 3.28 goals. D. Tarasov matched the effort (+2.99, 36/38 saves), but Lyon's margin clinched it.

Florida was effective in special situations—lethal on the rush (2 goals on 33 chances) and dominant on the power play (2 goals on 24 shots, 1.98 xG). Neither team capitalized on second chances: Panthers 0 on 3 rebounds, Sabres 0 on 5.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 27
BUF
3
FLA
2

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres edge the Panthers

Chances 5.0 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
4.99
FLA
4.28
54% of the chances46%

The board read BUF 3, FLA 2. The chances read BUF 5.0, FLA 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
−2.0
goals above expected
BUF4.99 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA4.28 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 2.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 17:48BUFA. TuchPP1–0
  2. P2 13:51FLAM. TkachukPP1–1
  3. P3 11:38BUFB. Malenstyn2–1
  4. P3 18:43BUFP. KrebsEN3–1
  5. P3 19:25FLAS. BennettPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
53 shots
3
Final
101 shots
FLA
48 shots
2
BUF attackFLA attack
BUF FLA Goal
53
shots · 3 in
48
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFFLA
1 / 8
2.72 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.62 xG
1 / 15
1.53 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.78 xG
1 / 47
0.73 xG
Low
1 / 45
0.87 xG

High-danger looks: BUF 1 of 8, FLA 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Lyon
+3.3
BUF · 28/29
A+
D. Tarasov
+3.0
FLA · 36/38
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres edge the Panthers

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 16–11
  1. 17:48BUFA. Tuchpower play(R. McLeod, B. Byram)1–0
2ndshots 12–11
  1. 13:51FLAM. Tkachukpower play(B. Marchand, S. Bennett)1–1
3rdshots 11–8
  1. 11:38BUFB. Malenstyn(J. Norris, N. Ostlund)2–1
  2. 18:43BUFP. Krebsempty net(T. Thompson, A. Tuch)3–1
  3. 19:25FLAS. Bennettpower play3–2

score reads BUF–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.99
BUF chances
Goals their shots were worth
−2.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.013
BUF puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
51.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.99Expected goals4.28
BUF 54% of the chance quality
39Shots on goal30
8High-danger chances6
70All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: BUF 50% · FLA 50%
Faceoffs · FLA won73%off52%neu61%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF1 / 8 · 2.72 xG
FLA1 / 6 · 1.62 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF1 / 15 · 1.53 xG
FLA0 / 15 · 1.78 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF1 / 47 · 0.73 xG
FLA1 / 45 · 0.87 xG

FLA went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.78 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
3 G · 4.99 xG · -2.0
FLA
2 G · 4.28 xG · -2.3
0123456

BUF finished -2.0 against expected, FLA -2.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
SNAP1/33
BACKHAND0/9
SLAP1/5
WRIST1/6
TIP IN0/0
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/17
FLA
SNAP1/31
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/5
WRIST0/1
TIP IN0/4
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER1/19
BUF
FLA
Off the rush
1 G on 30
2.39 xG
2 G on 33
2.83 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.61 xG
0 G on 3
0.87 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-33, FLA 1-for-31. FLA scored 2 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. Lyon
BUF · 28/29 · .966
+3.3
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.6+0.6
Medium0/151.8+1.8
Low1/450.9-0.1

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

D. Tarasov
FLA · 36/38 · .947
+3.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/82.7+1.7
Medium1/151.5+0.5
Low1/470.7-0.3

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

101 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BUF
53 shots
3
Final
101 shots
FLA
48 shots
2
BUF attackFLA attack
BUF FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, FLA 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
S. Bennett
#9 · C · FLA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:19 on ice
A. Tuch
#89 · R · BUF
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 19:23 on ice · +1
B. Byram
#4 · D · BUF
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:42 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Feb 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:40 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 2.5–2.6 goal game with the Panthers at 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Buffalo's 7-2-1 run over their last ten games masks an uncomfortable truth. The Sabres' 50.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi mean they're not dominating play—they're converting at unsustainable rates. Their 1.020 PDO (shooting and save percentages combined) confirms it: every puck is finding the net, and that won't hold.

Florida's inverse position proves more treacherous. The Panthers sit at 0.989 PDO over a season of play, snakebitten by bad luck, and the -6 goal differential over their last ten confirms it. Yet their 52.0% Corsi reveals the real frustration: Florida controls possession but cannot convert. Territory without finish is territory wasted.

The rest advantage tilts drastically toward Florida. The Panthers come in on 21 days of rest; Buffalo on 1. Watch whether U. Luukkonen starts or the Sabres go to a backup—a tired goaltender against rested forwards is how deficits inflate quickly.

Four skaters drive this game. Jason Zucker (1.07 xG/60, 14 goals, 6 high-danger chances) is Buffalo's engine; Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, 11.5% shooting) rides conversion variance upward. Sam Bennett (0.97 xG/60, 18 goals, 6 high-danger chances) manufactures opportunities for Florida through persistence. Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 19.5% shooting) is shooting variance incarnate—his high-danger output doesn't sustain his efficiency, yet at his conversion rate, volume absorbs everything.

The tactical imperative is identical on both sides. Buffalo must neutralize Zucker or surrender possession dominance to Florida. Florida must have Bennett and Marchand finish when rest turns possession into space. Whoever wins the possession battle wins the game; whoever is fresher will dictate it. The model understands this perfectly—and for good reason, it cannot pick a winner.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 52%
52%
FLA
Model favorite
48%
52%
BUF50FLA

FLA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.6 FLA; 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
BUF← edge
edge →FLA
50.0%49.0%
49.0%52.0%
2.552.48
2.552.56
2.351.98
1.902.21
1.0200.989

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.989) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
BUF
7-2-1
+12 GD · 1d rest
FLA
4-6-0
-6 GD · 21d rest
1.020
BUF PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (7-2-1 in their last 10).
  • The Panthers are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Panthers have 20 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
BUF
Expected in goal
U. Luukkonen
back-to-back.964 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.

FLA
Expected in goal
D. Tarasov
21 days rest.800 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page