Motion-blurred skater in a blue sweater
Breakdown · PIT at NYR

Rangers edge the Penguins in a shootout

The verdict · coin flip

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

PIT 2 · NYR 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:47 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 Rangers' shootout victory masks a game that was nearly even underneath. Expected goals split 3.57–3.50 in New York's favor—barely a rounding error—yet the Penguins underperformed their xG by 1.50 goals, wasting opportunities they should have buried.

The Rangers controlled structure: 42% of shot attempts (25–34 on goal) and a 5–4 edge in high-danger chances. They were lethal in transition, scoring twice on 26 rush attempts. But the efficiency picture inverts. New York underperformed its xG by 1.6 goals despite generating nine rebound opportunities—none converted.

Pittsburgh, despite generating high-quality looks relative to their shot total, was starved by finish. A team with those chances should have won.

Both goalies outperformed expected save percentage by roughly equal margins—S. Skinner by 1.57 goals, I. Shesterkin by 1.50. The shootout rendered their excellence beside the point. Vincent Trocheck's wrist shot from the slot became the decider.

The numbers said this was a coin flip. The scoreboard went to New York. That's what a shootout is—one shot to settle everything beforehand. The Rangers made theirs. Pittsburgh didn't.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Feb 28
PIT
2
NYR
3

Rangers edge the Penguins in a shootout

Chances 3.5 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Rangers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
3.50
NYR
3.57
50% of the chances51%

The board read PIT 2, NYR 3. The chances read PIT 3.5, NYR 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NYR
−0.6
goals above expected
NYR3.57 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT3.50 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 1.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:08PITA. ManthaPP1–0
  2. P2 01:59PITR. Shea2–0
  3. P2 10:00NYRM. ZibanejadPP2–1
  4. P3 02:57NYRT. Raddysh2–2
  5. SO 00:00NYRV. TrocheckPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
50 shots
2
Final
99 shots
NYR
49 shots
3
PIT attackNYR attack
PIT NYR Goal
50
shots · 2 in
49
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITNYR
0 / 4
0.92 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.06 xG
1 / 16
1.72 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.83 xG
1 / 41
0.85 xG
Low
0 / 46
0.68 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Skinner
+1.6
PIT · 23/25
A
I. Shesterkin
+1.5
NYR · 32/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Rangers edge the Penguins in a shootout

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 10–2
  1. 02:08PITA. Manthapower play(E. Karlsson, B. Rust)1–0
2ndshots 14–11
  1. 01:59PITR. Shea(C. Clifton, B. Lizotte)2–0
  2. 10:00NYRM. Zibanejadpower play(V. Trocheck, J. Miller)2–1
3rdshots 4–10
  1. 02:57NYRT. Raddysh(V. Gavrikov, B. Brisson)2–2
OTshots 6–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00NYRV. Trocheckpower play2–2

    score reads PIT–NYR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.57
    NYR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.997
    NYR puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    52.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.50Expected goals3.57
    NYR 51% of the chance quality
    34Shots on goal25
    4High-danger chances5
    61All attempts (Corsi)68
    Adjusted for score: PIT 44% · NYR 56%
    Faceoffs · NYR won80%off77%neu75%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PIT0 / 4 · 0.92 xG
    NYR1 / 5 · 1.06 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PIT1 / 16 · 1.72 xG
    NYR1 / 17 · 1.83 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PIT1 / 41 · 0.85 xG
    NYR0 / 46 · 0.68 xG

    PIT went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.92 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PIT
    2 G · 3.50 xG · -1.5
    NYR
    3 G · 3.57 xG · -0.6
    01234

    PIT finished -1.5 against expected, NYR -0.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PIT
    WRIST1/25
    SNAP0/6
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/7
    TIP IN1/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/14
    NYR
    WRIST0/32
    SNAP1/4
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/0
    TIP IN1/3
    DEFLECTED0/4
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/21
    PIT
    NYR
    Off the rush
    0 G on 29
    2.21 xG
    2 G on 26
    1.87 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.36 xG
    0 G on 9
    1.14 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 1-for-25, NYR 0-for-32. NYR 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
    S. Skinner
    PIT · 23/25 · .920
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.1+0.1
    Medium1/171.8+0.8
    Low0/460.7+0.7

    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

    I. Shesterkin
    NYR · 32/34 · .941
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium1/161.7+0.7
    Low1/410.8-0.1

    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

    99 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PIT
    50 shots
    2
    Final
    99 shots
    NYR
    49 shots
    3
    PIT attackNYR attack
    PIT NYR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, NYR 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
    V. Gavrikov
    #44 · D · NYR
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:17 on ice
    E. Karlsson
    #65 · D · PIT
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:14 on ice
    M. Zibanejad
    #93 · C · NYR
    1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 22:36 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Feb 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:44 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 can't pick a winner: 2.5 goals to 2.5 goals, 50% win probability for each side. This is a true pick'em.

    Pittsburgh is running hot. They're 8-1-1 in their last ten, while the Rangers are underwater at -9 goal differential over the same stretch. But the underlying shot data narrows the gap. The Penguins control play at 5v5, outshooting the Rangers in expected goals at 51.0% to 48.0%, with a slight edge in Corsi (50.0% to 49.0%). Both teams are efficient: Pittsburgh's PDO sits at 1.012, New York's at 1.009.

    Goaltending is a wildcard. Both I. Shesterkin and A. Silovs are on back-to-back games — watch for a backup start or fatigue from the starter.

    For Pittsburgh, Rickard Rakell is the real driver. He's got 13 goals on a 12.1% shooting rate, three of them high-danger chances. That efficiency won't hold. Filip Hallander, who was generating at 1.28 expected goals per 60 minutes, is likely out (IR — recalled from conditioning and awaiting further evaluation). That's a material loss for a team already thin on scoring depth.

    New York leans on Gabe Perreault, who has eight goals but a more modest 0.79 xG/60 — he's outscoring his chances. Adam Sykora is closer to his underlying play at 0.91 xG/60 with three goals and an impressive 20.0% shooting rate, but he's not a high-volume creator.

    The defensive picture is asymmetric. Caleb Jones has been Pittsburgh's weak link on the backend. Vincent Iorio has carried that role for the Rangers. Neither team is bludgeoning its way to a win; both rely on shot efficiency and play management.

    The Penguins have the momentum and the underlying numbers, but they've also had the luck (that 1.012 PDO won't sustain). The Rangers are underdogs on form but have the underlying play closer than their recent results suggest. In a game where both goaltenders might be tired and both offenses are flaky, expected value is split.

    This is a classic coin flip — take the price.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 50%
    50%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    PIT50NYR

    PIT by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.5–2.5 NYR; 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 →NYR
    51.0%48.0%
    50.0%49.0%
    2.662.26
    2.552.40
    2.451.88
    2.121.90
    1.0121.009

    PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.009) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    PIT
    8-1-1
    +20 GD · 1d rest
    NYR
    2-7-1
    -9 GD · 1d rest
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.009
    NYR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • I. Shesterkin is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • A. Silovs is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Penguins are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
    • The Rangers are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    PIT
    Expected in goal
    A. Silovs
    back-to-back.967 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.

    NYR
    Expected in goal
    I. Shesterkin
    back-to-back.875 last start
    Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 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.

    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
    NYR
    Adam Sykora3G 1A
    0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
    Gabe Perreault8G 11A
    0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next