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

Penguins edge the Senators in a shootout

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 4 · OTT 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:05 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 Penguins controlled this game—57% of 5v5 expected goals (5.99–4.52)—yet needed a shootout to beat Ottawa 4-3. Pittsburgh created 10 high-danger chances but converted none, underperforming their 5.99 xG by 1.99 goals. Ottawa underperformed its 4.52 xG by 1.52.

Pittsburgh dominated the shot count 40–29 and expected-goal margin at all danger levels. An open game with 19 combined high-danger chances still came down to variance—both teams misfired when it mattered most. Pittsburgh crashed the net effectively but converted 0 of 9 rebound opportunities.

S. Skinner saved 1.52 goals above expected for Pittsburgh (26 saves, 0.897 SV%). L. Ullmark saved 2.99 above expected for Ottawa (37 saves, 0.925 SV%). Ben Kindel's shootout goal broke the stalemate.

Pittsburgh was lethal on the rush: 3 goals on 34 chances. Ottawa: 2 goals on 32.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Mar 26
PIT
4
OTT
3

Penguins edge the Senators in a shootout

Chances 6.0 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
5.99
OTT
4.52
57% of the chances43%

The board read PIT 4, OTT 3. The chances read PIT 6.0, OTT 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
−2.0
goals above expected
PIT5.99 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT4.52 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 1.5 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 04:28OTTD. BathersonPP0–1
  2. P1 13:46PITR. Rakell1–1
  3. P2 01:50OTTN. Cousins1–2
  4. P2 03:45PITE. Karlsson2–2
  5. P3 01:43PITR. RakellPP3–2
  6. P3 03:58OTTD. Batherson3–3
  7. SO 00:00OTTD. BathersonPP3–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
70 shots
5
Final
121 shots
OTT
51 shots
4
PIT attackOTT attack
PIT OTT Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

70
shots · 5 in
51
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITOTT
0 / 10
2.25 xG
High danger
2 / 9
2.19 xG
2 / 30
3.07 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.62 xG
1 / 40
0.67 xG
Low
1 / 39
0.70 xG

High-danger looks: PIT 0 of 10, OTT 2 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
L. Ullmark
+3.0
OTT · 37/40
A
S. Skinner
+1.5
PIT · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins edge the Senators in a shootout

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 11–10
  1. 04:28OTTD. Bathersonpower play(B. Tkachuk, T. Stützle)0–1
  2. 13:46PITR. Rakell(E. Karlsson)1–1
2ndshots 16–6
  1. 01:50OTTN. Cousins(T. Kleven, L. Ullmark)1–2
  2. 03:45PITE. Karlsson(R. Rakell, B. Kindel)2–2
3rdshots 9–7
  1. 01:43PITR. Rakellpower play(E. Karlsson, B. Rust)3–2
  2. 03:58OTTD. Batherson(T. Stützle, J. Spence)3–3
OTshots 4–6no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00OTTD. Bathersonpower play3–3
    2. 00:00PITE. Chinakhovpower play3–3
    3. 00:00PITB. Kindelpower play3–3

    score reads PIT–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.99
    PIT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.0
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.990
    PIT puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    55.9%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.99Expected goals4.52
    PIT 57% of the chance quality
    40Shots on goal29
    10High-danger chances9
    80All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: PIT 56% · OTT 44%
    Faceoffs · OTT won67%off72%neu69%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PIT0 / 10 · 2.25 xG
    OTT2 / 9 · 2.19 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PIT2 / 30 · 3.07 xG
    OTT0 / 15 · 1.62 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PIT1 / 40 · 0.67 xG
    OTT1 / 39 · 0.70 xG

    PIT went 0-for-10 from high danger on 2.25 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PIT
    4 G · 5.99 xG · -2.0
    OTT
    3 G · 4.52 xG · -1.5
    01234567

    PIT finished -2.0 against expected, OTT -1.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PIT
    WRIST1/38
    SNAP1/11
    SLAP1/7
    TIP IN0/5
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/13
    OTT
    WRIST2/19
    SNAP0/9
    SLAP0/8
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND1/6
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/15
    PIT
    OTT
    Off the rush
    3 G on 34
    3.32 xG
    2 G on 32
    3.79 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 9
    1.48 xG
    1 G on 2
    0.31 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 1-for-38, OTT 2-for-19. PIT scored 3 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
    S. Skinner
    PIT · 26/29 · .897
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.2+0.2
    Medium0/151.6+1.6
    Low1/390.7-0.3

    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

    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 37/40 · .925
    +3.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/102.3+2.3
    Medium2/303.1+1.1
    Low1/400.7-0.3

    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

    121 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PIT
    70 shots
    5
    Final
    121 shots
    OTT
    51 shots
    4
    PIT attackOTT attack
    PIT OTT Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, OTT 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 · 8 SOG · 26:08 on ice · +1
    R. Rakell
    #67 · R · PIT
    2 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 20:52 on ice · +1
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 23:21 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:51 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 goal game favoring Ottawa, with the Senators at 56% win probability. That edge rests on a commanding disparity in shot quality: the underlying numbers say Pittsburgh is being outplayed, and Ottawa's recent run confirms it.

    Ottawa has a clear form advantage. The Senators went 8-2-0 over their last 10 games, while Pittsburgh sits at -7 goal differential over the same span. The Penguins are losing ground despite their underlying metrics suggesting they should be competitive.

    The season 5v5 picture explains why. Ottawa owns 56.0% expected goals compared to Pittsburgh's 51.0%, and territory tilts the same way: Senators at 53.0% Corsi to the Penguins' 50.0%. Pittsburgh's PDO of 1.012 suggests some luck has carried them through; Ottawa's 0.993 implies the Senators have been snakebitten relative to their play.

    Rickard Rakell is Pittsburgh's primary threat, generating 1.01 xG/60 with 13 goals and 3 high-danger goals. His 12.1% shooting rate is elevated and may not sustain. Filip Hallander has been recalled from conditioning but faces further evaluation—his status is uncertain. He's been generating 1.28 xG/60 but has yet to score.

    Ottawa's attack centers on Brady Tkachuk, who produces 1.19 xG/60 and 11 goals with 2 high-danger goals. At 7.5% shooting, he's efficient on quality looks. Dylan Cozens is similarly potent: 1.00 xG/60, 13 goals, 1 high-danger goal, and 9.5% shooting.

    Neither team has generated secondary scoring: both sit at 0% for high-danger goals and rebounds. Pittsburgh's weak link is Caleb Jones; Ottawa's is Nick Jensen. The game will likely turn on which team's top scorers hit their expected rate and which defense cracks first.

    Ottawa's edges are real and supported by recent performance. The model sees a Senators team that outworks opponents across most measurable dimensions and has the form to prove it.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 56%
    56%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    PIT50OTT

    OTT by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.4–2.7 OTT; 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 →OTT
    51.0%56.0%
    50.0%53.0%
    2.662.66
    2.552.12
    2.452.18
    2.121.99
    1.0120.993

    OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.993) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    PIT
    4-3-3
    -7 GD · 2d rest
    OTT
    8-2-0
    +12 GD · 2d rest
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Senators are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
    • The Penguins are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    PIT
    Expected in goal
    A. Silovs
    2 days rest.828 last start
    Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Ullmark
    2 days rest.943 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
    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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next