Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Washington Capitals sweater
← Thu, Mar 12 · the slate
Breakdown · WSH at BUF

C. Lindgren stands tall as the Capitals edge the Sabres

FinalThu, Mar 12
WSHWashington Capitals2BUFBuffalo Sabres1
The verdict · coin flip

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

WSH 2 · BUF 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:47 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

Washington's 2-1 win defied the possession count. Buffalo held 58% of shot attempts (30–22) and led 4.09–3.89 in expected goals, yet scored only once. The Sabres underperformed their xG by 3.09 goals and went 0 for 6 on high-danger chances—a collapse that C. Lindgren's brilliance masked.

Lindgren was flawless. He stopped 29 of 30 shots (0.967 SV%), saving 3.09 goals above expected. On high-danger chances, he was perfect: 6 for 6. U. Luukkonen posted a 0.909 SV% and gave back 1.89 goals above expected on 20 saves. The difference was the chasm between high-danger goal conversion.

Washington also underperformed their xG by 1.89. Yet J. Chychrun's snap shot from the high slot in the third period proved decisive—the moment that separated two teams with similar inefficiency. Both teams couldn't convert on high-danger chances (Washington went 0 for 9; Buffalo, 0 for 6), but Washington's goaltending turned margin-of-error hockey into a result.

Buffalo dominated statistically and still lost because they couldn't finish. Lindgren stole the win.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 12
WSH
2
BUF
1

C. Lindgren stands tall as the Capitals edge the Sabres

Chances 3.9 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Capitals took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
WSH
3.89
BUF
4.09
49% of the chances51%

The board read WSH 2, BUF 1. The chances read WSH 3.9, BUF 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WSH
−1.9
goals above expected
WSH3.89 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
BUF4.09 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres left 3.1 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 06:02BUFS. Carrick0–1
  2. P2 02:14WSHR. Leonard1–1
  3. P3 18:27WSHJ. Chychrun2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WSH
40 shots
2
Final
90 shots
BUF
50 shots
1
WSH attackBUF attack
WSH BUF Goal
40
shots · 2 in
50
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WSHBUF
0 / 9
2.34 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.34 xG
2 / 11
1.13 xG
Medium
1 / 20
2.13 xG
0 / 31
0.43 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.62 xG

The Sabres went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Lindgren
+3.1
WSH · 29/30
A
U. Luukkonen
+1.9
BUF · 20/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

C. Lindgren stands tall as the Capitals edge the Sabres

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 3–15
  1. 06:02BUFS. Carrick(B. Malenstyn, O. Power)0–1
2ndshots 6–10
  1. 02:14WSHR. Leonard1–1
3rdshots 13–5
  1. 18:27WSHJ. Chychrun(A. Protas, T. van Riemsdyk)2–1

score reads WSH–BUF

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.89
WSH chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.024
WSH puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.89Expected goals4.09
BUF 51% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal30
9High-danger chances6
51All attempts (Corsi)67
Adjusted for score: WSH 44% · BUF 56%
Faceoffs · BUF won50%off80%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WSH0 / 9 · 2.34 xG
BUF0 / 6 · 1.34 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WSH2 / 11 · 1.13 xG
BUF1 / 20 · 2.13 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WSH0 / 31 · 0.43 xG
BUF0 / 41 · 0.62 xG

WSH went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.34 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WSH
2 G · 3.89 xG · -1.9
BUF
1 G · 4.09 xG · -3.1
012345

WSH finished -1.9 against expected, BUF -3.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WSH
SNAP2/20
WRIST0/9
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/0
OTHER0/11
BUF
SNAP0/7
WRIST0/16
SLAP0/17
TIP IN1/9
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/17
WSH
BUF
Off the rush
1 G on 20
2.09 xG
0 G on 32
2.85 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.97 xG
0 G on 4
0.67 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WSH went 2-for-20, BUF 0-for-7.

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
C. Lindgren
WSH · 29/30 · .967
+3.1
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.3+1.3
Medium1/202.1+1.1
Low0/410.6+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

U. Luukkonen
BUF · 20/22 · .909
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/92.3+2.3
Medium2/111.1-0.9
Low0/310.4+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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WSH
40 shots
2
Final
90 shots
BUF
50 shots
1
WSH attackBUF attack
WSH BUF Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WSH 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
O. Power
#25 · D · BUF
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:29 on ice
J. Chychrun
#6 · D · WSH
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 20:25 on ice · +2
T. van Riemsdyk
#57 · D · WSH
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:00 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Mar 12
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:46 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 game defies conviction. The model projects a 2.6–2.7 goal range with Buffalo at 52% win probability—essentially a pick'em. When the analytics say flip a coin, trust the coin.

Buffalo arrives hotter by points pace: 8-1-1 over their last 10. Washington brings recency momentum too, but the underlying five-on-five numbers reveal why the model shrugs. Both teams sit at 50.0% expected goal share and 49.0% Corsi%. They are, at the level that predicts wins, identical.

Both are also running hot in PDO. Buffalo at 1.020, Washington at 1.018—luck that historically regresses. The question isn't whether both cool down, but whether it happens tonight or next week.

Goaltending introduces the first lever: L. Thompson faces a back-to-back. Watch for a backup start or a starter operating on fumes.

Where Buffalo's edge emerges is in elite scoring talent. Jason Zucker (1.07 xG/60, 14G 14A) generates chances at a higher clip than Washington's leaders. His six high-danger goals anchor real production. Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 15G 18A) represents secondary elite scoring; together, they generate looks Washington's depth can't replicate.

Alex Ovechkin (0.97 xG/60, 19G 17A) remains Washington's engine but runs slightly behind Zucker's per-60 rate. Anthony Beauvillier (0.89 xG/60, 14G 9A) carries 10.4% shooting, the kind of outlier that corrects—his 14 goals likely peak. That asymmetry matters.

Defensively, the weak points are mapped: Declan Chisholm for Washington, Jack Quinn for Buffalo. Buffalo's advantage in scoring depth suggests better armor around their liability; Washington's Beauvillier uptick masks a thinner middle-six in absolute terms.

The reason this reads as a true coin flip isn't absence of edges—it's balance. Expected goals mirror. Possession metrics mirror. The skill difference in scoring is real but modest. Regression risk hits both teams equally. When models refuse to separate teams this cleanly, they're usually right to refuse.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 52%
52%
BUF
Model favorite
48%
52%
WSH50BUF

BUF by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score WSH 2.6–2.7 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
WSH← edge
edge →BUF
50.0%50.0%
49.0%49.0%
2.622.55
2.622.55
2.182.35
1.791.90
1.0181.020

BUF holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 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
WSH
5-5-0
+0 GD · 1d rest
BUF
8-1-1
+12 GD · 2d rest
1.018
WSH 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.
  • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • L. Thompson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in 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
WSH
Expected in goal
L. Thompson
back-to-back.857 last start
Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 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
A. Lyon
2 days rest.850 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
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% 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