Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
Breakdown · PIT at COL

Penguins pull away from the Avalanche

The verdict · stolen

The Penguins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.26–3.92 and won anyway.

PIT 7 · COL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:31 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

Pittsburgh won 7-2 despite ceding 63% of expected goals. A. Silovs turned the game into a robbery.

Colorado controlled play at 5v5, holding 57% of shot attempts and 63% of xG (3.92–2.26). The Avalanche generated six high-danger chances to Pittsburgh's four. By every reasonable measure, they played better. They lost.

This was a goaltending mismatch in slow motion. Silovs stopped 1.92 goals above his expected save percentage, making 25 of 27 shots look routine. M. Blackwood, Colorado's primary starter, surrendered 2.30 goals more than expected and allowed 11 of 15 in limited action before S. Wedgewood took over and lasted exactly two saves on five shots (0.400 SV%).

Pittsburgh converted at an elite clip. E. Malkin scored twice on 16:18 of ice time. E. Karlsson added a goal and two assists in 21:44, controlling play from the perimeter. B. Rust chipped in a goal and assist. The three combined for five of Pittsburgh's seven goals—exactly the efficiency Colorado lacked. The Avalanche managed 0-for-6 on high-danger chances while Pittsburgh went 2-for-4 in those spots. That margin doesn't hold in rematches.

Noel Acciari's wrist shot from the doorstep in the third period was the turning point, arriving when momentum had already tilted sharply. Pittsburgh's rush game was lethal: five goals on 19 rush chances showed how thoroughly they punished Colorado's attempts to push pace.

Colorado underperformed their expected goals by 1.92—a sign that even by their underlying metrics, they couldn't finish. Pittsburgh overperformed by 4.74. Elite goaltending and ruthless execution in the other direction turned a closer game into a rout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 16
PIT
7
COL
2

Penguins pull away from the Avalanche

Chances 2.3 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
2.26
COL
3.92
37% of the chances63%

The board read PIT 7, COL 2. The chances read PIT 2.3, COL 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+4.7
goals above expected
PIT2.26 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
COL3.92 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins scored 4.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:01PITE. Malkin1–0
  2. P1 04:08COLN. MacKinnon1–1
  3. P1 04:23PITA. Mantha2–1
  4. P1 13:00PITE. Malkin3–1
  5. P1 13:43PITE. Soderblom4–1
  6. P1 14:21COLB. Burns4–2
  7. P2 10:36PITE. Karlsson5–2
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
28 shots
7
Final
74 shots
COL
46 shots
2
PIT attackCOL attack
PIT COL Goal
28
shots · 7 in
46
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITCOL
2 / 4
0.96 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.53 xG
3 / 9
0.91 xG
Medium
0 / 18
1.86 xG
2 / 27
0.40 xG
Low
2 / 44
0.54 xG

The Avalanche went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Silovs
+1.9
PIT · 25/27
D
S. Wedgewood
−0.7
COL · 2/5
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins pull away from the Avalanche

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 7–17
  1. 03:01PITE. Malkin(B. Rust, N. Acciari)1–0
  2. 04:08COLN. MacKinnon(M. Necas, C. Makar)1–1
  3. 04:23PITA. Mantha(E. Karlsson)2–1
  4. 13:00PITE. Malkin(E. Chinakhov, P. Wotherspoon)3–1
  5. 13:43PITE. Soderblom(C. Dewar, E. Karlsson)4–1
  6. 14:21COLB. Burns(G. Brindley, J. Manson)4–2
2ndshots 8–4
  1. 10:36PITE. Karlsson(R. Shea)5–2
  2. 16:20PITB. Rustpower play(E. Malkin, R. Rakell)6–2
3rdshots 5–6
  1. 09:06PITN. Acciari(E. Soderblom, C. Dewar)7–2

score reads PIT–COL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.26
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+4.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.146
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
37.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.26Expected goals3.92
COL 63% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal27
4High-danger chances6
40All attempts (Corsi)68
Adjusted for score: PIT 31% · COL 69%
Faceoffs · COL won50%off59%neu45%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT2 / 4 · 0.96 xG
COL0 / 6 · 1.53 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT3 / 9 · 0.91 xG
COL0 / 18 · 1.86 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT2 / 27 · 0.40 xG
COL2 / 44 · 0.54 xG

PIT went 3-for-9 from medium danger on 0.91 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
7 G · 2.26 xG · +4.7
COL
2 G · 3.92 xG · -1.9
012345678

PIT finished +4.7 against expected, COL -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST4/12
SNAP1/5
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND2/2
OTHER0/12
COL
WRIST1/28
SNAP1/7
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/22
PIT
COL
Off the rush
5 G on 19
1.73 xG
1 G on 28
2.40 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.29 xG
0 G on 4
0.93 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 4-for-12, COL 1-for-28. PIT 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 · 25/27 · .926
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.5+1.5
Medium0/181.9+1.9
Low2/440.5-1.5

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

M. Blackwood
COL · 11/15 · .733
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.0-1.0
Medium3/90.9-2.1
Low2/270.4-1.6

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

S. Wedgewood
COL · 2/5 · .400
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.0-1.0
Medium3/90.9-2.1
Low2/270.4-1.6

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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
28 shots
7
Final
74 shots
COL
46 shots
2
PIT attackCOL attack
PIT COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, COL 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
E. Karlsson
#65 · D · PIT
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 21:44 on ice · +2
E. Malkin
#71 · C · PIT
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:18 on ice · +1
B. Rust
#17 · R · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:05 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Mar 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:30 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 2.5–2.9 goal Avalanche win, pricing Colorado at 57% to take it.

Colorado's edge starts with control. The Avalanche dominate 5v5 expected goals at 57.0% to Pittsburgh's 51.0% — a meaningful margin that translates to territorial advantage. Corsi reinforces it: 57.0% to 50.0%, meaning Colorado generates more shot attempts and dictates play.

But regression lurks. Colorado's PDO sits at 1.021 — the team is running hot — while Pittsburgh's 1.012 suggests some cooling could come. That PDO gap could compress.

Pittsburgh will lean on Rickard Rakell. He's scored 13 goals on 12.1% shooting, with three from high-danger spots. But Filip Hallander is likely unavailable — he was recalled from the WBSPenguins (AHL) for further evaluation. He had generated 1.28 xG/60 on just 0 goals and 3 assists before his status clouded.

Colorado has depth. Artturi Lehkonen has scored 18 goals on 14.9% shooting, with six from high-danger areas on 1.11 xG/60 — he's converting at a premium to his underlying shot quality. Ross Colton, at 1.10 xG/60, has 7 goals but only 4.9% shooting, leaving room for improvement.

Defensively, both teams show cracks. Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones is a clear weak link; Colorado's Nazem Kadri mirrors that vulnerability. Neither team converts high-danger chances — both sit at 0%. Neither has solved that problem.

The model's 57% Colorado lean reflects superior process: better possession, better shot volume, better expected-goal creation. PDO regression is real, but insufficient to overcome Colorado's underlying edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 57%
57%
COL
Model favorite
43%
57%
PIT50COL

COL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.5–2.9 COL; 17% 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 →COL
51.0%57.0%
50.0%57.0%
2.663.03
2.552.30
2.452.63
2.121.56
1.0121.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
PIT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
COL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
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
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next