Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
← Thu, Mar 19 · the slate
Breakdown · BUF at SJS

Sabres shut out the Sharks, 5-0

FinalThu, Mar 19
BUFBuffalo Sabres5SJSSan Jose Sharks0
The verdict · coin flip

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

BUF 5 · SJS 0
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:13 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 Sharks looked like the better team—59% of shot attempts, near-parity in expected goals (2.82–3.00)—and then lost 5-0. San Jose generated dangerous chances and crashed the net; Buffalo got lucky and left chances for the opposing goalie to steal. The difference: goaltending.

A. Nedeljkovic was catastrophic, stopping 11 of 16 shots (0.688 SV%), 2.0 goals worse than expected. A. Lyon's answer: 23 of 23 (1.000 SV%), 2.82 above expected.

The Sharks' high-danger chances (7 total) never materialized. Buffalo's did: 2 goals from spots that should not have beaten the goalie, plus 5 goals on 21 rush attempts—lethal efficiency on the transition.

R. Dahlin recorded 1 goal and 1 assist in 19:15. L. Stanley added 2 assists in 18:06. S. Carrick scored twice in 13:27, with his deflection from the doorstep the game's fulcrum.

San Jose created 4 rebound opportunities but couldn't beat Lyon. The Sharks generated the volume and quality; the goaltenders decided the margin.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 19
BUF
5
SJS
0

Sabres shut out the Sharks, 5-0

Chances 3.0 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
3.00
SJS
2.82
52% of the chances48%

The board read BUF 5, SJS 0. The chances read BUF 3.0, SJS 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+2.0
goals above expected
BUF3.00 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS2.82 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres scored 2.0 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. P2 09:05BUFN. Ostlund1–0
  2. P2 09:41BUFS. Carrick2–0
  3. P2 10:48BUFR. Dahlin3–0
  4. P3 00:40BUFT. Thompson4–0
  5. P3 16:54BUFS. Carrick5–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
26 shots
5
Final
60 shots
SJS
34 shots
0
BUF attackSJS attack
BUF SJS Goal
26
shots · 5 in
34
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFSJS
2 / 7
1.74 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.74 xG
1 / 9
0.96 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.63 xG
2 / 27
0.31 xG
Low
0 / 33
0.45 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Lyon
+2.8
BUF · 23/23
F
A. Nedeljkovic
−2.0
SJS · 11/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres shut out the Sharks, 5-0

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 5–7no goals
    2ndshots 3–10
    1. 09:05BUFN. Ostlund(J. Doan, L. Stanley)1–0
    2. 09:41BUFS. Carrick(R. Dahlin, Z. Benson)2–0
    3. 10:48BUFR. Dahlin(J. Zucker, M. Samuelsson)3–0
    3rdshots 8–6
    1. 00:40BUFT. Thompson(P. Krebs, A. Tuch)4–0
    2. 16:54BUFS. Carrick(L. Stanley, Z. Metsa)5–0

    score reads BUF–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.00
    BUF chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.0
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.116
    BUF puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    46.7%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.00Expected goals2.82
    BUF 52% of the chance quality
    16Shots on goal23
    7High-danger chances3
    43All attempts (Corsi)49
    Adjusted for score: BUF 43% · SJS 57%
    Faceoffs · SJS won44%off64%neu44%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    BUF2 / 7 · 1.74 xG
    SJS0 / 3 · 0.74 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    BUF1 / 9 · 0.96 xG
    SJS0 / 13 · 1.63 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    BUF2 / 27 · 0.31 xG
    SJS0 / 33 · 0.45 xG

    BUF went 2-for-27 from low danger on 0.31 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    BUF
    5 G · 3.00 xG · +2.0
    SJS
    0 G · 2.82 xG · -2.8
    0123456

    BUF finished +2.0 against expected, SJS -2.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    BUF
    WRIST4/19
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/1
    SLAP0/0
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/17
    SJS
    WRIST0/26
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND0/3
    SLAP0/4
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/15
    BUF
    SJS
    Off the rush
    5 G on 21
    2.70 xG
    0 G on 21
    1.92 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.22 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.74 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 4-for-19, SJS 0-for-26. BUF 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. Lyon
    BUF · 23/23 · 1.000
    +2.8
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium0/131.6+1.6
    Low0/330.5+0.5

    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

    A. Nedeljkovic
    SJS · 11/16 · .688
    -2.0
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/71.7-0.3
    Medium1/91.0-0.0
    Low2/270.3-1.7

    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

    60 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    BUF
    26 shots
    5
    Final
    60 shots
    SJS
    34 shots
    0
    BUF attackSJS attack
    BUF SJS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, SJS 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. Dahlin
    #26 · D · BUF
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:15 on ice · +2
    L. Stanley
    #64 · D · BUF
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:06 on ice · +2
    S. Carrick
    #10 · C · BUF
    2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 13:27 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 19
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:57 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 2.5-2.6 goal game with the Sharks at 50% win probability—you don't get much closer to a pick'em than this.

    Buffalo holds a slim structural edge. The Sabres own 50.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi at 5v5, suggesting they're building chances and controlling play slightly better than San Jose, which posts 48.0% and 47.0% respectively. These gaps are razor-thin, the kind of margins that usually don't move the needle.

    But PDO flips the script. Buffalo's 1.020 means the Sabres are running hot—converting at an elevated rate and catching breaks on defense that their underlying numbers don't justify. San Jose's 0.998 sits at expectation. Regression, for Buffalo, is not a possibility but an inevitability.

    Jason Zucker is the Sabres' primary finisher. He generates 1.07 xG per 60 and has scored 14 goals on 15.1% shooting, with 6 high-danger tallies. Josh Doan supplies secondary punch with 1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, and 18 assists, his 11.5% shooting rate far more sustainable than Zucker's heater. Together they're beating their expected output—a warning sign for a hot streak approaching reality.

    San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, the Sharks' most dangerous volume generator at 1.10 xG per 60. He's potted just 5 goals, his 16.1% shooting suggesting room for the puck to cooperate more often going forward. Igor Chernyshov adds 6 goals and 8 assists on 0.91 xG/60, his 15.0% shooting indicating he's slightly outperforming the quality of his looks.

    Neither team produces high-danger or rebound goals at meaningful scale—evidence of suffocating defensive structures and scarce second chances. The Sabres' weak link is Jack Quinn. Chernyshov carries that defensive burden for San Jose. Neither gives ground easily, which compounds the low-scoring nature the models project.

    This is margin-of-error hockey. Buffalo has volume and fortune; San Jose has cleaner process. The model splits the difference at 50-50 because, at this level of competition, it's the only honest answer. Expect a tight, grinding affair decided by goaltending and whichever team's hot streak holds for one more night.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    SJS 50%
    50%
    SJS
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    BUF50SJS

    SJS by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.5–2.6 SJS; 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 →SJS
    50.0%48.0%
    49.0%47.0%
    2.552.33
    2.552.56
    2.351.99
    1.902.32
    1.0200.998

    BUF holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.998) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    BUF
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    SJS
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.020
    BUF PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    SJS 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
    • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
    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
    SJS
    Pavol Regenda5G 1A
    1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
    Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page