Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater

Breakdown · DAL at PIT

Stars run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Mar 28

DALDallas Stars6 PITPittsburgh Penguins3

The verdict · earned

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

DAL 6 · PIT 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:18 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 goaltenders diverged in opposite directions: S. Skinner (PIT) overperformed his xG by 0.58 goals while J. Oettinger (DAL) underperformed by 0.85, yet Dallas still won 6-3. The verdict was decided by overall control. Dallas had 68% of 5v5 expected goals (4.58–2.15), 68% of shot attempts (26–12), and 6 high-danger chances to Pittsburgh's 1.

Dallas's 0.085 expected goals per shot crushed Pittsburgh's 0.038. The Stars were clinical in high-danger areas—3 of 6 converted (50%)—then added 2 low-danger goals that belong in the net only on good nights. Pittsburgh scored all 3 goals on the rush (3 on 23 chances), an efficient burst that nearly made a hopeless position look respectable. Dallas also scored 3 on the rush (3 on 27) and dominated the power play: 2 goals on 15 shots (1.13 xG).

Mavrik Bourque's wrist shot from the point (P3, 18:50) accelerated Dallas's control.

Goaltending

J. Oettinger (DAL) made 9 of 12 saves (0.750 SV%, –0.85 vs. expected). S. Skinner (PIT) finished at 20 of 24 (0.833 SV%, +0.58 vs. expected).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 28

DAL

PIT

Stars run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.6 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

4.58

PIT

2.15

68% of the chances32%

The board read DAL 6, PIT 3. The chances read DAL 4.6, PIT 2.1.

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

Luck check

DAL

+1.4

goals above expected

DAL4.58 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT2.15 expected · 3 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

P1 02:12PITA. ManthaPP0–1
P2 02:10DALJ. Hryckowian1–1
P2 02:58PITE. Karlsson1–2
P2 07:12DALJ. RobertsonPP2–2
P2 10:12DALM. RantanenPP3–2
P2 11:38DALL. Bichsel4–2
P3 08:54PITN. Acciari4–3

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

DAL

40 shots

Final

72 shots

PIT

32 shots

DAL PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALPIT

3 / 6

2.62 xG

High danger

1 / 1

0.21 xG

1 / 13

1.27 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.35 xG

2 / 35

0.69 xG

Low

1 / 43

0.59 xG

The Stars buried 3 of 6 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

S. Skinner

+0.6

PIT · 20/24

D-

J. Oettinger

−0.8

DAL · 9/12

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Stars 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 9–4

02:12PITA. Manthapower play(E. Karlsson, R. Rakell)0–1

2ndshots 9–5

02:10DALJ. Hryckowian(C. Blackwell, J. Benn)1–1
02:58PITE. Karlsson(P. Wotherspoon)1–2
07:12DALJ. Robertsonpower play(M. Rantanen, M. Duchene)2–2
10:12DALM. Rantanenpower play(J. Robertson, M. Heiskanen)3–2
11:38DALL. Bichsel(M. Bourque, O. Bäck)4–2

3rdshots 8–3

08:54PITN. Acciari(E. Soderblom, E. Karlsson)4–3
16:52DALM. Bourqueempty net(T. Myers)5–3
18:50DALM. Bourqueempty net(J. Benn, E. Lindell)6–3

score reads DAL–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.58

DAL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.058

DAL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

48.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.58Expected goals2.15

DAL 68% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal12

6High-danger chances1

54All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: DAL 47% · PIT 53%

Faceoffs · PIT won50%off47%neu33%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL3 / 6 · 2.62 xG

PIT1 / 1 · 0.21 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL1 / 13 · 1.27 xG

PIT1 / 13 · 1.35 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL2 / 35 · 0.69 xG

PIT1 / 43 · 0.59 xG

DAL went 2-for-35 from low danger on 0.69 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

6 G · 4.58 xG · +1.4

PIT

3 G · 2.15 xG · +0.8

01234567

DAL finished +1.4 against expected, PIT +0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

WRIST4/30

TIP IN0/3

SLAP2/3

SNAP0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/14

PIT

WRIST1/20

TIP IN1/4

SLAP0/3

SNAP0/3

DEFLECTED1/1

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/25

DAL

PIT

Off the rush

3 G on 27

2.09 xG

3 G on 23

1.47 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.16 xG

0 G on 1

0.16 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 4-for-30, PIT 1-for-20. DAL 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

J. Oettinger

DAL · 9/12 · .750

-0.8

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/10.2-0.8

Medium1/131.4+0.3

Low1/430.6-0.4

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. Skinner

PIT · 20/24 · .833

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/62.6-0.4

Medium1/131.3+0.3

Low2/350.7-1.3

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

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

40 shots

Final

72 shots

PIT

32 shots

DAL PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, PIT 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 · 1 SOG · 24:47 on ice · -1

M. Bourque

#22 · C · DAL

2 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:02 on ice · +3

J. Robertson

#21 · L · DAL

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 21:03 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:13 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 this matchup at roughly 2.5-2.6 expected goals per side, with Pittsburgh at 52% win probability—the kind of prediction that's indistinguishable from a true coin flip.

Pittsburgh is struggling in real time. The Penguins sit minus-5 in goal differential over their last ten games, which explains why the model doesn't trust them despite favorable possession metrics.

Both teams generate identical expected-goal share at 5v5: 51.0%. But they control play differently. Dallas posts 47.0% Corsi—yielding shot volume while converting those against them into danger—while Pittsburgh drives 50.0%, dictating puck location in high-value areas. That territorial advantage compounds when you consider Dallas running at 1.024 PDO; the Stars are playing hotter than their underlying shot quality supports. Pittsburgh sits at 1.012, closer to neutral, which means Dallas can expect some regression.

The game hinges on who exploits the gap between shot volume and shot quality. Jason Robertson anchors Dallas at 0.96 xG per 60, backed by 25 goals, 21 assists, and a 12.4% shooting rate, including 2 high-danger goals. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8 goals, 14 assists) operates at a 7.6% conversion rate—lean but effective.

Pittsburgh's offense is disrupted by Filip Hallander's absence; he's been recalled from an AHL conditioning assignment for further evaluation, removing the team's highest-volume threat at 1.28 xG per 60. Rickard Rakell absorbs that load with 1.01 xG per 60, 13 goals, 13 assists, and 3 high-danger goals at 12.1% shooting.

Defensively, Dallas lists Tyler Myers as its weak link. Pittsburgh's vulnerability: Caleb Jones.

Robertson's 0.96 xG per 60 is the offset to Pittsburgh's territorial advantage. That's the coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 52%

52%

PIT

Model favorite

48%

52%

DAL50PIT

PIT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.5–2.6 PIT; 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

DAL← edge

edge →PIT

51.0%51.0%

47.0%50.0%

2.362.66

2.292.55

2.072.45

1.682.12

1.0241.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.012) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DAL

5-4-1

+1 GD · 2d rest

PIT

5-3-2

-5 GD · 2d rest

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Penguins are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DAL

Expected in goal

J. Oettinger

2 days rest.920 last start

Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PIT

Expected in goal

S. Skinner

2 days rest.897 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page