Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
← Tue, Mar 3 · the slate
Breakdown · VGK at BUF

Sabres hold off the Golden Knights

FinalTue, Mar 3
VGKVegas Golden Knights2BUFBuffalo Sabres3
The verdict · coin flip

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

VGK 2 · BUF 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:16 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 Sabres won a game that looked like a coin flip in expected goals—4.11 to 4.07—yet they found a way past Vegas anyway. A team that couldn't convert its high-danger chances (0 for 7) scored twice from low-danger ice, the kind of spots most teams leave on the table.

Both sides whiffed on their best looks. Vegas generated 5 high-danger chances and buried none; Buffalo generated 7 and also came up empty in that category. The difference: Buffalo scored twice from lower-danger areas, the kind of spots where most goalies make the save. A. Schmid didn't.

A. Lyon, the Sabres' goalie, was the primary difference. He saved 2.07 goals above what his expected-save percentage forecast, turning away dangerous attempts at a rate that beats the models. A. Schmid played well too (1.11 above expected), but he couldn't overcome the conversion gap.

Vegas crashed harder, generating 9 rebound opportunities to Buffalo's 3, but converted only 1 rebound to Buffalo's 0. The Sabres were more efficient when it mattered. The true disconnect: Vegas created more chaos in front, yet Buffalo controlled the high-danger areas (7 to 5) and won decisively in goaltending performance. Neither team could finish its best chances, so the game hinged on margins elsewhere—rebound discipline and one goalie playing above his expected line.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 3
VGK
2
BUF
3

Sabres hold off the Golden Knights

Chances 4.1 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
4.07
BUF
4.11
50% of the chances50%

The board read VGK 2, BUF 3. The chances read VGK 4.1, BUF 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
−1.1
goals above expected
BUF4.11 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
VGK4.07 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Golden Knights left 2.1 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 04:02BUFJ. Zucker0–1
  2. P2 00:46BUFO. Power0–2
  3. P2 05:44BUFT. Thompson0–3
  4. P2 06:50VGKI. Barbashev1–3
  5. P2 08:27VGKP. Dorofeyev2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VGK
48 shots
2
Final
94 shots
BUF
46 shots
3
VGK attackBUF attack
VGK BUF Goal
48
shots · 2 in
46
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VGKBUF
0 / 5
1.30 xG
High danger
0 / 7
2.04 xG
2 / 20
2.19 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.46 xG
0 / 34
0.58 xG
Low
2 / 38
0.61 xG

The Golden Knights went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Lyon
+2.1
BUF · 27/29
B+
A. Schmid
+1.1
VGK · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres hold off the Golden Knights

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 7–11
  1. 04:02BUFJ. Zucker(R. McLeod, R. Dahlin)0–1
2ndshots 16–12
  1. 00:46BUFO. Power(N. Ostlund)0–2
  2. 05:44BUFT. Thompson(A. Tuch, R. Dahlin)0–3
  3. 06:50VGKI. Barbashev(S. Theodore, J. Eichel)1–3
  4. 08:27VGKP. Dorofeyev(R. Smith)2–3
3rdshots 6–5no goals

    score reads VGK–BUF

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.11
    BUF chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.018
    BUF puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    49.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.07Expected goals4.11
    BUF 50% of the chance quality
    29Shots on goal28
    5High-danger chances7
    59All attempts (Corsi)58
    Adjusted for score: VGK 55% · BUF 45%
    Faceoffs · BUF won57%off53%neu57%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VGK0 / 5 · 1.30 xG
    BUF0 / 7 · 2.04 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VGK2 / 20 · 2.19 xG
    BUF1 / 13 · 1.46 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VGK0 / 34 · 0.58 xG
    BUF2 / 38 · 0.61 xG

    BUF went 0-for-7 from high danger on 2.04 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VGK
    2 G · 4.07 xG · -2.1
    BUF
    3 G · 4.11 xG · -1.1
    012345

    VGK finished -2.1 against expected, BUF -1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VGK
    SNAP0/28
    WRIST1/6
    TIP IN0/2
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND1/1
    OTHER0/11
    BUF
    SNAP1/31
    WRIST2/7
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/0
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/12
    VGK
    BUF
    Off the rush
    1 G on 25
    2.45 xG
    1 G on 29
    2.27 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 9
    1.39 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.41 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: VGK went 0-for-28, BUF 1-for-31.

    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. Schmid
    VGK · 25/28 · .893
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/72.0+2.0
    Medium1/131.5+0.5
    Low2/380.6-1.4

    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. Lyon
    BUF · 27/29 · .931
    +2.1
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.3+1.3
    Medium2/202.2+0.2
    Low0/340.6+0.6

    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

    94 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    VGK
    48 shots
    2
    Final
    94 shots
    BUF
    46 shots
    3
    VGK attackBUF attack
    VGK BUF Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK left, BUF 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
    R. Dahlin
    #26 · D · BUF
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 25:50 on ice · +2
    S. Theodore
    #27 · D · VGK
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:29 on ice
    O. Power
    #25 · D · BUF
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:54 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Mar 3
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:15 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 2.5 goals for Vegas, 2.5 for Buffalo, with the Golden Knights at 51% win probability. This is a true coin flip.

    Buffalo has momentum: 7-2-1 in their last 10, accumulating points on volume. Vegas is struggling: minus-8 goal differential over the same stretch. That should signal a routine Buffalo victory. The underlying numbers say otherwise.

    The Golden Knights dominate possession at even strength: 54.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi—they control territorial play, create more chances, and dictate the game's geography. Buffalo's corresponding marks are 50.0% and 49.0%. Vegas should generate more by volume; Buffalo has simply finished those chances at a higher clip.

    This gap reveals the core tension. Buffalo's shooting luck masks a disadvantage. Their PDO sits at 1.020, hot enough to juice recent results. Vegas's 0.983 is cold—unsustainably so, given the underlying play. Expect some reversion: Buffalo tending downward, Vegas upward, which narrows the gap between the recent scoreboard and what the numbers predict.

    Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60, 3 goals, 6 assists) is marked inactive, removing a key weapon for Vegas. Tomas Hertl takes on added responsibility: 0.88 xG/60, 5 goals, 17 assists, and 4.3% shooting.

    Buffalo counters with Jason Zucker (1.07 xG/60, 14 goals, 15.1% shooting) and Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, 11.5% shooting). Both convert at elite rates.

    Vegas's defensive liability is Rasmus Andersson. Buffalo's is Jack Quinn. In a game this tight, those weak points determine whether this unfolds as a possession-driven Vegas win or a Buffalo upset fueled by shooting variance.

    The projection makes sense: two teams pulling in opposite directions. Recent form favors Buffalo; underlying play favors Vegas. That's why the model landed on a coin flip rather than declaring a winner.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 51%
    51%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    VGK50BUF

    VGK by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 2.5–2.5 BUF; 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 →BUF
    54.0%50.0%
    52.0%49.0%
    2.522.55
    2.112.55
    2.122.35
    2.101.90
    0.9831.020

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.983 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    VGK
    3-5-2
    -8 GD · 2d rest
    BUF
    7-2-1
    +13 GD · 2d rest
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.020
    BUF 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 50.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • 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 50.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (7-2-1 in their last 10).
    • The Golden Knights are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    VGK
    Expected in goal
    A. Hill
    2 days rest.773 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    BUF
    Expected in goal
    U. Luukkonen
    2 days rest.947 last start
    Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page