Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Thu, Mar 12 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at VGK

Golden Knights run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Mar 12
PITPittsburgh Penguins2VGKVegas Golden Knights6
The verdict · earned

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

PIT 2 · VGK 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:20 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 Golden Knights demolished the Penguins 6-2, and the divergence started with shot volume: Pittsburgh took 26 shots to Vegas's 17. But the underlying metrics explained the gap entirely. Vegas controlled 62% of 5v5 expected goals (4.60–2.80) and dominated high-danger chances 7–2.

Their shot quality was lethal: 0.102 xG per shot versus Pittsburgh's 0.044. The goaltending mirrored this control. A. Silovs (PIT) stopped 11 of 16 shots for a 0.688 save percentage—below expectation. A. Hill (VGK) was surgical: 24 of 26 saves, 0.923 SV%, running +0.80 against his expected outcome.

Vegas's rush attack was the execution story. They scored 5 goals on 17 rush chances. Pittsburgh, despite their shot volume, managed only 2 goals on 29 rush attempts. That asymmetry—Vegas clinical in transition, Pittsburgh inefficient throughout—sums up the game.

The variance broke right for Vegas. They overperformed their xG by 1.40 goals while Pittsburgh underperformed by 0.80, but that was noise on a 62–38 edge. Sometimes the numbers and the scoreboard align perfectly.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 12
PIT
2
VGK
6

Golden Knights run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.8 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
2.80
VGK
4.60
38% of the chances62%

The board read PIT 2, VGK 6. The chances read PIT 2.8, VGK 4.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
+1.4
goals above expected
VGK4.60 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT2.80 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 08:41VGKC. Sissons0–1
  2. P2 05:02VGKP. Dorofeyev0–2
  3. P2 08:26PITR. Rakell1–2
  4. P2 09:20VGKM. Marner1–3
  5. P2 16:22PITB. Kindel2–3
  6. P3 04:35VGKP. Dorofeyev2–4
  7. P3 06:20VGKJ. Eichel2–5
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
42 shots
2
Final
73 shots
VGK
31 shots
6
PIT attackVGK attack
PIT VGK Goal
42
shots · 2 in
31
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITVGK
0 / 2
0.48 xG
High danger
3 / 7
3.28 xG
2 / 16
1.71 xG
Medium
3 / 12
1.06 xG
0 / 46
0.60 xG
Low
0 / 26
0.26 xG

The Golden Knights buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Hill
+0.8
VGK · 24/26
D
A. Silovs
−0.4
PIT · 11/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 6–6
  1. 08:41VGKC. Sissons(B. Bowman)0–1
2ndshots 9–5
  1. 05:02VGKP. Dorofeyev(K. Korczak, B. Bowman)0–2
  2. 08:26PITR. Rakell(B. Rust, R. Shea)1–2
  3. 09:20VGKM. Marner(P. Dorofeyev)1–3
  4. 16:22PITB. Kindel(A. Mantha, R. Shea)2–3
3rdshots 11–6
  1. 04:35VGKP. Dorofeyev(M. Marner)2–4
  2. 06:20VGKJ. Eichel(I. Barbashev, S. Theodore)2–5
  3. 19:01VGKB. McNabbempty net(J. Eichel)2–6

score reads PIT–VGK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.60
VGK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.102
VGK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.80Expected goals4.60
VGK 62% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal17
2High-danger chances7
64All attempts (Corsi)45
Adjusted for score: PIT 64% · VGK 36%
Faceoffs · VGK won71%off50%neu82%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT0 / 2 · 0.48 xG
VGK3 / 7 · 3.28 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT2 / 16 · 1.71 xG
VGK3 / 12 · 1.06 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT0 / 46 · 0.60 xG
VGK0 / 26 · 0.26 xG

VGK went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.06 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
2 G · 2.80 xG · -0.8
VGK
6 G · 4.60 xG · +1.4
01234567

PIT finished -0.8 against expected, VGK +1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST0/16
TIP IN2/8
SLAP0/6
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/22
VGK
WRIST5/17
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/5
SNAP1/4
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/14
PIT
VGK
Off the rush
2 G on 29
2.32 xG
5 G on 17
1.69 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 1
0.54 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 0-for-16, VGK 5-for-17. VGK scored 5 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. Silovs
PIT · 11/16 · .688
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/73.3+0.3
Medium3/121.1-1.9
Low0/260.3+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

A. Hill
VGK · 24/26 · .923
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium2/161.7-0.3
Low0/460.6+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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
42 shots
2
Final
73 shots
VGK
31 shots
6
PIT attackVGK attack
PIT VGK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, VGK 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
P. Dorofeyev
#16 · R · VGK
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:32 on ice · +3
J. Eichel
#9 · C · VGK
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:51 on ice · +2
R. Shea
#5 · D · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:16 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, 7:17 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 2.4-2.7 Vegas game with the Golden Knights at 55% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

VGK owns the underlying play. The Knights generate 54.0% xG at 5v5 to Pittsburgh's 51.0%, and their Corsi advantage sits at 52.0% to 50.0%. Here's where it gets interesting: Vegas's PDO is 0.983, running cold relative to shot quality. That signals positive regression in scoring efficiency ahead. Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO tells the opposite story — the Penguins have squeezed luck out of their shot volume, a metric you can't bank on repeating.

Rickard Rakell anchors Pittsburgh's offense with 1.01 xG/60, 13G, 13A, and a 12.1% shooting rate. His three hard-deadline goals show he's cashing in on high-danger chances. Vegas's firepower is distributed. Brandon Saad generates 0.91 xG/60 with 3G, 6A, one HD goal, and a 4.1% shooting rate — suppressed relative to his volume. Tomas Hertl sits at 0.88 xG/60, 5G, 17A, one HD goal, and 4.3% shooting, also below what his xG suggests.

Filip Hallander, Pittsburgh's 1.28 xG/60 producer, is sidelined pending further evaluation — a significant roster blow.

A. Hill faces the second half of a back-to-back. Watch whether Vegas starts him tired or deploys the backup; the choice cascades through matchups.

Defensively, Caleb Jones is Pittsburgh's transition weakness, while Rasmus Andersson represents Vegas's recovery liability against a paced forecheck. Neither team has converted high-danger or rebound chances — both sit at 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, sustainable but reflecting limited chaos-goal upside.

The verdict: VGK's underlying numbers push the odds to 55%, but PDO regression sits so close to parity that this genuinely feels like a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 55%
55%
VGK
Model favorite
45%
55%
PIT50VGK

VGK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.4–2.7 VGK; 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
PIT← edge
edge →VGK
51.0%54.0%
50.0%52.0%
2.662.52
2.552.11
2.452.12
2.122.10
1.0120.983

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PIT
4-2-4
+3 GD · 2d rest
VGK
4-6-0
-3 GD · 1d rest
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.983
VGK 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%.
  • A. Hill is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • 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
PIT
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
2 days rest.909 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

VGK
Expected in goal
A. Hill
back-to-back.875 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.

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
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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page