Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
← Sat, Mar 7 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at BUF

Sabres hold off the Predators

FinalSat, Mar 7
NSHNashville Predators2BUFBuffalo Sabres3
The verdict · coin flip

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

NSH 2 · BUF 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:59 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

Buffalo got a result its underlying numbers barely deserved. Predators held a 3.75–3.63 expected goals edge, yet the Sabres took the 3-2 win. A. Lyon (BUF) saved 1.75 goals above expected — the goaltending margin that hijacked Nashville's advantage.

The shot attempt split remained razor-thin: 49% Sabres (24–25 on goal). High-danger chances favored Nashville, 7–5, but Buffalo was clinical in the dangerous area — 40% conversion on their looks. Off the rush, both teams scored twice: Buffalo on 28 attempts, Nashville on 21.

At the net-front, Buffalo converted one of three rebound opportunities. Nashville created four and finished with zero.

Matthew Wood's tip-in from the slot in the third period sealed it.

Goaltending

  • J. Saros (NSH): 21/24 saves, 0.875 SV% (+0.63 vs expected)
  • A. Lyon (BUF): 23/25 saves, 0.920 SV% (+1.75 vs expected)
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 7
NSH
2
BUF
3

Sabres hold off the Predators

Chances 3.8 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
3.75
BUF
3.63
51% of the chances49%

The board read NSH 2, BUF 3. The chances read NSH 3.8, BUF 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
−0.6
goals above expected
BUF3.63 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH3.75 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Predators left 1.8 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. P2 01:17NSHZ. L'Heureux1–0
  2. P2 12:39BUFT. Thompson1–1
  3. P2 14:17BUFJ. Zucker1–2
  4. P3 00:16BUFJ. Doan1–3
  5. P3 16:08NSHM. WoodPP2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
40 shots
2
Final
83 shots
BUF
43 shots
3
NSH attackBUF attack
NSH BUF Goal
40
shots · 2 in
43
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHBUF
1 / 7
1.59 xG
High danger
2 / 5
2.03 xG
0 / 12
1.48 xG
Medium
1 / 8
0.87 xG
1 / 41
0.68 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.72 xG

The Sabres buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Lyon
+1.8
BUF · 23/25
B
J. Saros
+0.6
NSH · 21/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres hold off the Predators

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 6–2no goals
    2ndshots 12–13
    1. 01:17NSHZ. L'Heureux(J. Marchessault, R. O'Reilly)1–0
    2. 12:39BUFT. Thompson(A. Tuch)1–1
    3. 14:17BUFJ. Zucker(J. Quinn, R. Dahlin)1–2
    3rdshots 7–9
    1. 00:16BUFJ. Doan(J. Norris, N. Ostlund)1–3
    2. 16:08NSHM. Woodpower play(R. Josi, S. Stamkos)2–3

    score reads NSH–BUF

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.63
    BUF chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.021
    BUF puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    47.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.75Expected goals3.63
    NSH 51% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal24
    7High-danger chances5
    60All attempts (Corsi)55
    Adjusted for score: NSH 54% · BUF 46%
    Faceoffs · BUF won42%off30%neu44%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH1 / 7 · 1.59 xG
    BUF2 / 5 · 2.03 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH0 / 12 · 1.48 xG
    BUF1 / 8 · 0.87 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH1 / 41 · 0.68 xG
    BUF0 / 42 · 0.72 xG

    NSH went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.48 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    2 G · 3.75 xG · -1.8
    BUF
    3 G · 3.63 xG · -0.6
    012345

    NSH finished -1.8 against expected, BUF -0.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    SNAP0/14
    WRIST1/8
    TIP IN1/6
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/2
    BAT0/1
    POKE0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/20
    BUF
    SNAP1/16
    WRIST1/13
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP1/3
    BACKHAND0/6
    BAT0/0
    POKE0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/12
    NSH
    BUF
    Off the rush
    2 G on 21
    2.27 xG
    2 G on 28
    1.87 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.71 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.80 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: NSH went 0-for-14, BUF 1-for-16. NSH 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
    J. Saros
    NSH · 21/24 · .875
    +0.6
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/52.0+0.0
    Medium1/80.9-0.1
    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

    A. Lyon
    BUF · 23/25 · .920
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.6+0.6
    Medium0/121.5+1.5
    Low1/410.7-0.3

    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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    40 shots
    2
    Final
    83 shots
    BUF
    43 shots
    3
    NSH attackBUF attack
    NSH BUF Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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. Josi
    #59 · D · NSH
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:56 on ice · -2
    R. Dahlin
    #26 · D · BUF
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:36 on ice · +3
    R. O'Reilly
    #90 · C · NSH
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:20 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Mar 7
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:58 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-to-2.7 goal game with the Sabres at 53% win probability—essentially a pick'em.

    The underlying stats explain the closeness. Expected goals slightly favor Buffalo (50.0% to 49.0%), while shot attempt share slightly favors Nashville (50.0% to 49.0%). This is a matchup between teams nearly identical in structure.

    But structure isn't destiny. Buffalo's 1.020 PDO indicates the Sabres are running hot; regression is coming. Nashville's 0.992 PDO suggests the Predators have left points on the table. That gap could decide this.

    Both goalies are on back-to-backs. U. Luukkonen and J. Saros both figure to play, which removes the depth excuse for either team.

    The matchup story revolves around two forwards: Filip Forsberg against Buffalo's defense, and Jason Zucker against Nashville's. Forsberg has scored 23 goals on 13.6% shooting and generates 0.80 xG per 60—efficient and clinical. Zucker is the more dangerous: 14 goals on 15.1% shooting with 1.07 xG per 60 and 6 high-danger goals. That volume in dangerous areas matters most.

    Zachary L'Heureux is the third Nashville scorer worth tracking—0.85 xG per 60, 4 goals, one of them high-danger—but his 16.0% shooting rate is unsustainable. Josh Doan is similar: 1.01 xG per 60, 15 goals, 2 high-danger chances. His 11.5% shooting rate will regress as well.

    Buffalo's offensive edge is modest but real. Nashville's advantage is depth; when Forsberg inevitably cools, secondary scoring steps in. When Zucker regresses, the Sabres become mortal.

    Defensively, both teams have a weak link. Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's; Jack Quinn is Buffalo's. Neither is a threshold problem, but both will see targeted pressure.

    This truly is even. If you have the Sabres, call it a lean. If you have the Predators, call it value. The model didn't pick a winner—and it shouldn't have.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    BUF 53%
    53%
    BUF
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    NSH50BUF

    BUF by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 2.5–2.7 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
    NSH← edge
    edge →BUF
    49.0%50.0%
    50.0%49.0%
    2.482.55
    2.582.55
    1.842.35
    2.211.90
    0.9921.020

    BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 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
    NSH
    4-3-3
    -1 GD · 1d rest
    BUF
    7-2-1
    +10 GD · 1d rest
    0.992
    NSH PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.020
    BUF 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
    • U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Saros 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
    NSH
    Expected in goal
    J. Saros
    back-to-back.870 last start
    Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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.

    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.

    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
    NSH
    Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
    0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
    Filip Forsberg23G 17A
    0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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