Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · VGK at PIT

Penguins shut out the Golden Knights, 5-0

FinalSun, Mar 1

VGKVegas Golden Knights0 PITPittsburgh Penguins5

The verdict · earned

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

VGK 0 · PIT 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:27 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 Penguins' 5-0 victory masks an ugly statistical truth: the underlying metrics suggested this game was nearly even. Expected goals were 2.39–2.04, a 54–46 split in Pittsburgh's favor. Shot attempts were perfectly even at 22 each. The scoreboard lied.

A. Silovs stole this game. The Penguins goaltender stopped 22 of 22 shots and outperformed his expected save percentage by 2.04 goals — the difference between a 5-2 game and this shutout. Meanwhile, A. Hill (VGK) gave up 2.61 goals above expected, surrendering five to Pittsburgh's 2.39 xG. The gap tilts hard toward variance rather than dominance.

Pittsburgh's advantage lay in shot quality, not volume. The Penguins generated 0.051 expected goals per shot against Vegas's 0.037. In the high-danger zone, Pittsburgh converted 2 of 4 scoring chances (50%) while Vegas converted 0 of 2. Pittsburgh also scored twice from low-danger spots — chances Vegas's goalie is expected to stop — and were lethal on the rush, scoring 4 goals on 22 rush chances.

Vegas created real opportunities. The Golden Knights drew 4 rebound chances but cashed none, suggesting desperation without reward. The turning point arrived early: Justin Brazeau's wrist shot from the top of the circles in the third period (14:59, P3) shifted momentum before Vegas could build on their underlying work.

The Penguins' clinical finishing masked a game that, by the numbers, could have gone either way.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 1

VGK

PIT

Penguins shut out the Golden Knights, 5-0

Chances 2.0 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

VGK

2.04

PIT

2.39

46% of the chances54%

The board read VGK 0, PIT 5. The chances read VGK 2.0, PIT 2.4.

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

Luck check

PIT

+2.6

goals above expected

PIT2.39 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

VGK2.04 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Penguins scored 2.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 14:56PITB. Kindel0–1
P2 05:47PITE. Chinakhov0–2
P2 09:34PITB. RustPP0–3
P2 15:06PITR. RakellPP0–4
P3 14:59PITJ. Brazeau0–5

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

Where the shots came from

VGK

35 shots

Final

65 shots

PIT

30 shots

VGK PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VGKPIT

0 / 2

0.40 xG

High danger

2 / 4

0.89 xG

0 / 11

0.97 xG

Medium

1 / 10

0.92 xG

0 / 42

0.67 xG

Low

2 / 33

0.59 xG

The Penguins buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A. Silovs

+2.0

PIT · 22/22

A. Hill

−2.6

VGK · 17/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins shut out the Golden Knights, 5-0

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 5–6

14:56PITB. Kindel(A. Mantha)0–1

2ndshots 7–11

05:47PITE. Chinakhov(T. Novak, J. Brazeau)0–2
09:34PITB. Rustpower play(E. Karlsson, E. Malkin)0–3
15:06PITR. Rakellpower play(E. Karlsson, B. Rust)0–4

3rdshots 10–5

14:59PITJ. Brazeau(B. Kindel, K. Letang)0–5

score reads VGK–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.39

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.106

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

46.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.04Expected goals2.39

PIT 54% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal22

2High-danger chances4

55All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: VGK 59% · PIT 41%

Faceoffs · PIT won32%off42%neu33%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VGK0 / 2 · 0.40 xG

PIT2 / 4 · 0.89 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VGK0 / 11 · 0.97 xG

PIT1 / 10 · 0.92 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VGK0 / 42 · 0.67 xG

PIT2 / 33 · 0.59 xG

PIT went 2-for-33 from low danger on 0.59 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VGK

0 G · 2.04 xG · -2.0

PIT

5 G · 2.39 xG · +2.6

0123456

VGK finished -2.0 against expected, PIT +2.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

VGK

WRIST0/20

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/5

SNAP0/3

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/20

PIT

WRIST5/20

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/3

SNAP0/1

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/17

VGK

PIT

Off the rush

0 G on 24

1.27 xG

4 G on 22

1.74 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.53 xG

1 G on 2

0.31 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 0-for-20, PIT 5-for-20. 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. Hill

VGK · 17/22 · .773

-2.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/40.9-1.1

Medium1/100.9-0.1

Low2/330.6-1.4

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

A. Silovs

PIT · 22/22 · 1.000

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium0/111.0+1.0

Low0/420.7+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

65 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VGK

35 shots

Final

65 shots

PIT

30 shots

VGK PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK left, PIT 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

E. Karlsson

#65 · D · PIT

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:58 on ice · +2

B. Rust

#17 · R · PIT

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:08 on ice

B. Kindel

#81 · C · PIT

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 14:23 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Mar 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:01 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

This is a true toss-up. The model projects a 2.5-2.5 tie with the Golden Knights at exactly 50% win probability, leaving no reliable edge to exploit.

The Penguins enter as the hotter team on paper—7-1-2 in their last 10 games. But recent form masks deeper imbalance: Vegas owns the underlying play by a meaningful margin. The Golden Knights are running 54.0% expected goals at 5v5 versus Pittsburgh's 51.0%, and out-corsi them 52.0% to 50.0%.

This underlying advantage matters because it signals sustainable edge. Yet Vegas has been underperforming their true talent level. Their PDO sits at 0.983, a cold-running indicator that suggests regression toward better results is likely. Pittsburgh, conversely, sits at 1.012—they've been fortunate with bounces—though their recent win streak suggests they may have found genuine traction anyway.

The goaltending situation complicates both teams' preparation. S. Skinner faces a back-to-back start, and Pittsburgh may opt for a backup. A. Schmid also works a back-to-back for the visitors. Fatigue could determine more than it usually does.

For Vegas, Brandon Saad has been operating at high volume with 0.91 xG/60 and carries 3 goals and 6 assists, though he's marked likely out due to inactivity. Tomas Hertl remains active: 5 goals, 17 assists, and a 4.3% shooting rate that compounds his offensive threat.

Pittsburgh's scoring thrust hinges on Rickard Rakell, who has posted 13 goals and 13 assists while converting 12.1% of his opportunities. Filip Hallander was recalled to undergo further evaluation and testing but is listed as likely out. The Penguins' secondary scoring depth will thus face pressure to deliver.

Both teams show weak finishing discipline at the moment—each sitting at 0% hard-hit and rebound goal rates, a statistical oddity that won't sustain. Vegas's defensive structure is tested most by Rasmus Andersson; Pittsburgh's by Caleb Jones.

The edge here is razor-thin by design. Vegas has the process advantage; Pittsburgh has recent results. That's the entire game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 51%

51%

VGK

Model favorite

51%

49%

VGK50PIT

VGK by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 2.5–2.5 PIT; 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

VGK← edge

edge →PIT

54.0%51.0%

52.0%50.0%

2.522.66

2.112.55

2.122.45

2.102.12

0.9831.012

VGK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

VGK

4-4-2

+0 GD · 1d rest

PIT

7-1-2

+16 GD · 1d rest

0.983

VGK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.

Regression watch

The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Schmid is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Penguins are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

VGK

Expected in goal

A. Schmid

back-to-back.900 last start

Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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.

PIT

Expected in goal

S. Skinner

back-to-back.920 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.

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

VGK

Brandon Saad3G 6A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh

Tomas Hertl5G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page