Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · BUF at PIT

U. Luukkonen stands tall as the Sabres edge the Penguins

FinalThu, Mar 5

BUFBuffalo Sabres5 PITPittsburgh Penguins1

The verdict · earned

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

BUF 5 · PIT 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:37 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

Expected goals said 3.52–4.19 in favor of Buffalo; the scoreboard said 5–1. U. Luukkonen made the difference.

The underlying play suggested a closer game. The Penguins held 52% of shot attempts (28–26 on goal), but Luukkonen's 0.964 save percentage (+2.52 vs expected) swallowed what Pittsburgh created. A. Silovs posted 0.840 on the other side, and Pittsburgh's offense couldn't bridge the gap. The Penguins underperformed their xG by 2.52 goals—quality chances that never materialized.

Buffalo's finishing proved clinical where Pittsburgh's faltered. The Sabres converted 3 of 6 high-danger chances (50%) and scored 3 goals from 28 rush attempts. Pittsburgh generated 4 rebound opportunities and converted none. Buffalo also created 3 rebounds and cashed one, closing the efficiency gap that xG had forecast as tight.

Mattias Samuelsson's wrist shot from the top of the circles (P3, 16:53) crystallized Buffalo's control. The goal arrived when Pittsburgh had built competing expected offense, yet couldn't answer; Luukkonen's heat and the Sabres' execution answered instead.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 5

BUF

PIT

U. Luukkonen stands tall as the Sabres edge the Penguins

Chances 4.2 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

4.19

PIT

3.52

54% of the chances46%

The board read BUF 5, PIT 1. The chances read BUF 4.2, PIT 3.5.

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

Luck check

BUF

+0.8

goals above expected

BUF4.19 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT3.52 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Penguins left 2.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 12:00BUFR. McLeodSH1–0
P1 14:48PITB. RustSH1–1
P2 04:10BUFJ. NorrisPP2–1
P2 06:18BUFA. Tuch3–1
P2 10:30BUFO. Power4–1
P3 16:53BUFM. SamuelssonEN5–1

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

48 shots

Final

89 shots

PIT

41 shots

BUF PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFPIT

3 / 6

1.92 xG

High danger

1 / 7

1.46 xG

1 / 14

1.45 xG

Medium

0 / 15

1.62 xG

1 / 41

0.82 xG

Low

0 / 34

0.43 xG

The Sabres buried 3 of 6 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

U. Luukkonen

+2.5

BUF · 27/28

A. Silovs

+0.2

PIT · 21/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

U. Luukkonen stands tall as the Sabres edge the Penguins

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 7–6

12:00BUFR. McLeodshorthanded1–0
14:48PITB. Rustshorthanded(B. Kindel)1–1

2ndshots 11–12

04:10BUFJ. Norrispower play(J. Doan, B. Byram)2–1
06:18BUFA. Tuch(O. Power, T. Thompson)3–1
10:30BUFO. Power(J. Norris, N. Ostlund)4–1

3rdshots 8–10

16:53BUFM. Samuelssonempty net5–1

score reads BUF–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.19

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.8

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.064

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

52.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.19Expected goals3.52

BUF 54% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal28

6High-danger chances7

61All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: BUF 47% · PIT 53%

Faceoffs · PIT won50%off38%neu37%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF3 / 6 · 1.92 xG

PIT1 / 7 · 1.46 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF1 / 14 · 1.45 xG

PIT0 / 15 · 1.62 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF1 / 41 · 0.82 xG

PIT0 / 34 · 0.43 xG

PIT went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.62 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

5 G · 4.19 xG · +0.8

PIT

1 G · 3.52 xG · -2.5

0123456

BUF finished +0.8 against expected, PIT -2.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

WRIST3/36

TIP IN1/4

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND1/1

SNAP0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/13

PIT

WRIST1/27

TIP IN0/5

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/3

SNAP0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT0/1

OTHER0/15

BUF

PIT

Off the rush

3 G on 28

2.43 xG

1 G on 22

2.35 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.47 xG

0 G on 4

0.65 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 3-for-36, PIT 1-for-27. BUF scored 3 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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 27/28 · .964

+2.5

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.5+0.5

Medium0/151.6+1.6

Low0/340.4+0.4

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 · 21/25 · .840

+0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/61.9-1.1

Medium1/141.4+0.5

Low1/410.8-0.2

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

48 shots

Final

89 shots

PIT

41 shots

BUF PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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

O. Power

#25 · D · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:45 on ice · +3

J. Norris

#9 · C · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:41 on ice

B. Byram

#4 · D · BUF

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:32 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Mar 5

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:37 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 to 2.7 goals with Pittsburgh favored at 53%—call this a pick'em. Buffalo and Pittsburgh are nearly even across every meaningful metric, separated by margins that live within statistical noise.

Buffalo's expected goals percentage sits at 50.0% with a 49.0% Corsi; Pittsburgh matches at 51.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%. That's a dead heat. The only daylight is Buffalo's 1.020 PDO, which is also a warning sign: the Sabres are running hot and regression is coming. Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO is closer to what regression looks like.

Both goaltenders are on back-to-backs. S. Skinner and A. Lyon could be tired starters or replacements entirely—an uncertainty layer the model can't fully absorb.

Buffalo rides Jason Zucker and Josh Doan. Zucker generates 1.07 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 14 assists, including 6 high-danger chances and a 15.1% shooting rate that won't last. Doan tracks at 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists on just 2 high-danger goals and 11.5% shooting—his offensive output is more sustainable. Jack Quinn is Buffalo's defensive leak.

Pittsburgh leans on Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13G 13A, 3 HD goals, 12.1% shooting) after losing Filip Hallander to an evaluation: Hallander (1.28 xG/60, 0G 3A) is out. Caleb Jones is Pittsburgh's defensive vulnerability.

This isn't a game waiting to break one way. It's built to go either direction.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 53%

53%

PIT

Model favorite

47%

53%

BUF50PIT

PIT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.7 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

BUF← edge

edge →PIT

50.0%51.0%

49.0%50.0%

2.552.66

2.552.55

2.352.45

1.902.12

1.0201.012

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.012) 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

+9 GD · 1d rest

PIT

6-2-2

+13 GD · 1d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Lyon is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

back-to-back.931 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.

PIT

Expected in goal

S. Skinner

back-to-back.929 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

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

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