Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · DET at BUF

Red Wings pull away from the Sabres

FinalFri, Mar 27

DETDetroit Red Wings5 BUFBuffalo Sabres2

The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.04–4.17 and won anyway.

DET 5 · BUF 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:10 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

Detroit stole this one. Buffalo controlled 58% of expected goals and lost 5-2—a reversal entirely written by goaltending and finishing.

The Sabres held 60% of shot attempts (30–20 on goal) and dominated the underlying metrics. J. Gibson (DET) stopped 2.17 goals above expected with 28 saves on 30 shots (0.933 SV%). A. Lyon (BUF) gave back 0.96 goals, allowing 15 saves on 19 shots (0.789 SV%).

Detroit's advantage wasn't volume—it was precision. The Red Wings generated 0.082 expected goals per shot versus Buffalo's 0.061. Detroit converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%).

Buffalo's dominance in volume collapsed in execution. On the rush, the Sabres scored 2 goals on 38 chances; Detroit scored 2 on 20. Buffalo had 6 rebound opportunities and capitalized on zero. Detroit created 4 and scored on 2. Efficiency trumped possession.

Patrick Kane's wrist shot from the point (P3, 18:17) embodied Detroit's precision approach.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 27

DET

BUF

Red Wings pull away from the Sabres

Chances 3.0 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

DET

3.04

BUF

4.17

42% of the chances58%

The board read DET 5, BUF 2. The chances read DET 3.0, BUF 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

DET

+2.0

goals above expected

DET3.04 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF4.17 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Red Wings 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

P1 04:02DETA. DeBrincatPP1–0
P1 09:11DETL. RaymondPP2–0
P1 16:06DETM. Kasper3–0
P2 05:35BUFT. Thompson3–1
P3 15:46DETJ. Bernard-Docker4–1
P3 16:25BUFR. Dahlin4–2
P3 18:17DETP. KaneEN5–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

DET

30 shots

Final

81 shots

BUF

51 shots

DET BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DETBUF

2 / 4

1.32 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.68 xG

2 / 12

1.28 xG

Medium

1 / 26

2.95 xG

1 / 21

0.45 xG

Low

0 / 39

0.54 xG

The Red Wings buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

J. Gibson

+2.2

DET · 28/30

D-

A. Lyon

−1.0

BUF · 15/19

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings pull away from 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 10–11

04:02DETA. DeBrincatpower play(M. Seider, D. Larkin)1–0
09:11DETL. Raymondpower play(M. Seider)2–0
16:06DETM. Kasper(E. Finnie, J. van Riemsdyk)3–0

2ndshots 3–12

05:35BUFT. Thompson(P. Krebs, C. Timmins)3–1

3rdshots 7–7

15:46DETJ. Bernard-Docker(P. Kane, A. DeBrincat)4–1
16:25BUFR. Dahlin(T. Pearson, B. Byram)4–2
18:17DETP. Kaneempty net(A. DeBrincat)5–2

score reads DET–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.04

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.106

DET puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

35.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.04Expected goals4.17

BUF 58% of the chance quality

20Shots on goal30

4High-danger chances3

37All attempts (Corsi)68

Adjusted for score: DET 29% · BUF 71%

Faceoffs · BUF won57%off44%neu27%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DET2 / 4 · 1.32 xG

BUF1 / 3 · 0.68 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DET2 / 12 · 1.28 xG

BUF1 / 26 · 2.95 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DET1 / 21 · 0.45 xG

BUF0 / 39 · 0.54 xG

BUF went 1-for-26 from medium danger on 2.95 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DET

5 G · 3.04 xG · +2.0

BUF

2 G · 4.17 xG · -2.2

0123456

DET finished +2.0 against expected, BUF -2.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DET

WRIST3/3

SNAP2/21

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/0

OTHER0/7

BUF

WRIST1/37

SNAP0/2

TIP IN0/9

BACKHAND0/1

SLAP1/2

OTHER0/17

DET

BUF

Off the rush

2 G on 20

1.46 xG

2 G on 38

2.89 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 4

0.57 xG

0 G on 6

0.94 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 3-for-3, BUF 1-for-37. DET scored 2 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

J. Gibson

DET · 28/30 · .933

+2.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.7-0.3

Medium1/263.0+1.9

Low0/390.5+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. Lyon

BUF · 15/19 · .789

-1.0

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.3-0.7

Medium2/121.3-0.7

Low1/210.5-0.6

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DET

30 shots

Final

81 shots

BUF

51 shots

DET BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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

A. DeBrincat

#93 · R · DET

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 18:56 on ice · +1

M. Seider

#53 · D · DET

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 29:48 on ice · +1

P. Kane

#88 · R · DET

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:01 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Mar 27

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:07 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: Detroit 2.5–2.6, Sabres 53% win probability. This is a pick'em.

Buffalo has velocity. They're 7-1-2 in their last ten, which reads like dominance until you check the underlying game. Detroit runs 49.0% expected goals while Buffalo runs 50.0%—close enough that shot quality isn't separating them. Corsi is tied at 49.0%. The real gap is Buffalo's luck: a 1.020 PDO that inflates their point total above what their play suggests. That regression is coming.

Detroit's edge is controlled star power. Alex DeBrincat operates at 0.88 expected goals per 60 and has posted 17 goals and 28 assists, though only 2 on high-danger chances. His 9.0% shooting suggests he's not running on variance. Marco Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists) lives on the edge of a 6.1% shot rate with 1 high-danger goal—fragile numbers.

Buffalo leans on a single scorer running too hot. Jason Zucker generates 1.07 xG/60 with 14 goals, 14 assists, and 6 high-danger tallies. His 15.1% shooting rate is a mirage; it cannot hold. Josh Doan operates at 1.01 xG/60 and 11.5% shooting—15 goals and 18 assists with 2 in true danger. Doan will age better than Zucker, but Zucker's immediate threat is undeniable.

Defensive pressure points: Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's weak link in transition. Jack Quinn shoulders that role for Buffalo. Neither team generates rebound or second-chance goals at meaningful rates (both 0%), which likely means their underlying structure is sound, though sample noise could obscure the truth.

The Sabres' recent form is real. Their personnel edge is real. But Buffalo is playing above its sustainable line. Detroit's floor is higher. This is the rare game where the models, the recent record, and the underlying numbers don't align—which is precisely why it's a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 53%

53%

BUF

Model favorite

47%

53%

DET50BUF

BUF by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.5–2.6 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

DET← edge

edge →BUF

49.0%50.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.382.55

2.502.55

1.732.35

2.071.90

0.9851.020

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 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

DET

3-5-2

-3 GD · 3d rest

BUF

7-1-2

+13 GD · 2d rest

0.985

DET 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.

Things to watch

The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 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

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

3 days rest.857 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF

Expected in goal

U. Luukkonen

2 days rest.871 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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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