Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · SEA at BUF

Sabres edge the Kraken in a shootout

Final / OTSat, Mar 28

The verdict · earned

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

SEA 2 · BUF 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:19 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 Sabres' 3-2 shootout victory obscured a rare chance drought on both sides: Buffalo converted 0 of 7 high-danger chances, Seattle 0 of 8. The Kraken generated more scoring opportunities (8 to 7), a disagreement with the final score that expected goals only partially resolved—the Sabres held a 54–46 xG edge (4.86–4.15)—while shot attempts favored Buffalo by a thin margin (51%, 36–34 on goal).

Neither team separated itself in transition or around the net. The Sabres converted 2 of 38 rush chances; the Kraken 2 of 31. Around the net, the pattern repeated: Buffalo created 3 rebound opportunities with 0 conversions, Seattle 5 with 0. Both squandered their offensive chances entirely.

Goaltending masked the underlying parity. P. Grubauer (SEA) compiled a 0.944 SV% (+2.86 vs expected), while U. Luukkonen (BUF) posted 0.941 (+2.15). The Sabres underperformed their 4.86 xG by 1.86 goals; the Kraken underperformed their 4.15 by 2.15. Neither team earned the margin that separated them on the scoreboard.

Jack Quinn's snap shot from the doorstep in the shootout decided it—the only goal that mattered when regulation and overtime could not.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Mar 28

SEA

BUF

Sabres edge the Kraken in a shootout

Chances 4.2 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

4.15

BUF

4.86

46% of the chances54%

The board read SEA 2, BUF 3. The chances read SEA 4.2, BUF 4.9.

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

Luck check

BUF

−1.9

goals above expected

BUF4.86 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

SEA4.15 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Kraken left 2.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 12:42SEAC. Stephenson1–0
P2 13:18SEAB. McMann2–0
P2 15:55BUFR. DahlinPP2–1
P3 11:39BUFP. Krebs2–2
SO 00:00BUFT. ThompsonPP2–2
SO 00:00BUFJ. QuinnPP2–2

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

Where the shots came from

SEA

50 shots

Final

108 shots

BUF

58 shots

SEA BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEABUF

0 / 8

2.00 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.97 xG

2 / 12

1.41 xG

Medium

1 / 21

2.31 xG

0 / 39

0.73 xG

Low

1 / 47

0.57 xG

The Kraken went 0 for 8 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

P. Grubauer

+2.9

SEA · 34/36

U. Luukkonen

+2.1

BUF · 32/34

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres edge the Kraken 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

12:42SEAC. Stephenson(K. Kakko, B. McMann)1–0

2ndshots 14–17

13:18SEAB. McMann(K. Kakko, C. Stephenson)2–0
15:55BUFR. Dahlinpower play(T. Thompson, J. Quinn)2–1

3rdshots 9–6

11:39BUFP. Krebs(Z. Benson)2–2

OTshots 0–3no goals

00:00BUFT. Thompsonpower play2–2
00:00BUFJ. Quinnpower play2–2

score reads SEA–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.86

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.9

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.993

BUF puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

56.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.15Expected goals4.86

BUF 54% of the chance quality

34Shots on goal36

8High-danger chances7

59All attempts (Corsi)75

Adjusted for score: SEA 42% · BUF 59%

Faceoffs · BUF won55%off67%neu41%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA0 / 8 · 2.00 xG

BUF0 / 7 · 1.97 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA2 / 12 · 1.41 xG

BUF1 / 21 · 2.31 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA0 / 39 · 0.73 xG

BUF1 / 47 · 0.57 xG

SEA went 0-for-8 from high danger on 2.00 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

2 G · 4.15 xG · -2.1

BUF

3 G · 4.86 xG · -1.9

0123456

SEA finished -2.1 against expected, BUF -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

SNAP2/22

WRIST0/9

SLAP0/9

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/11

BUF

SNAP0/33

WRIST2/7

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/19

SEA

BUF

Off the rush

2 G on 31

2.82 xG

2 G on 38

3.71 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

0.67 xG

0 G on 3

0.28 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 2-for-22, BUF 0-for-33. SEA 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

P. Grubauer

SEA · 34/36 · .944

+2.9

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/72.0+2.0

Medium1/212.3+1.3

Low1/470.6-0.4

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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 32/34 · .941

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/82.0+2.0

Medium2/121.4-0.6

Low0/390.7+0.7

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

108 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SEA

50 shots

Final

108 shots

BUF

58 shots

SEA BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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 — SEA 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

C. Stephenson

#9 · C · SEA

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:03 on ice · +2

B. McMann

#74 · C · SEA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:14 on ice · +2

K. Kakko

#84 · R · SEA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:02 on ice · +2

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, 9:17 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 Sabres are favored with a 56% win probability; the model projects 2.7 expected goals for Buffalo, 2.3 for Seattle. The edge stems from Buffalo's command of 5v5 play—not just recent form, which the Sabres also own.

Buffalo enters 6-2-2 over its last 10 games. The Kraken have stumbled, sitting at -11 goal differential in the same span. But form is secondary. At even strength, Buffalo dominates: 50.0% xG against Seattle's 46.0%, and 49.0% Corsi versus 45.0%. The underlying advantage is decisive.

Both teams are running hot on PDO: Buffalo at 1.020, Seattle at 1.011. Regression is coming. When it does, the Sabres' edge narrows but persists. The fundamental advantage is real.

Goaltending is a wildcard. A. Lyon starts on a back-to-back, so expect either a backup or a tired starter. Seattle's net becomes a liability.

Players to Watch

Jason Zucker (BUF) — 1.07 xG/60, 14 goals, 6 high-danger chances
Josh Doan (BUF) — 1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, 2 high-danger chances
Shane Wright (SEA) — 0.77 xG/60, 8 goals, 4 high-danger chances
Berkly Catton (SEA) — 0.68 xG/60, 6 goals, 5 high-danger chances

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 56%

55%

BUF

Model favorite

45%

55%

SEA50BUF

BUF by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.7 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

SEA← edge

edge →BUF

46.0%50.0%

45.0%49.0%

2.132.55

2.512.55

1.872.35

1.951.90

1.0111.020

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 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

SEA

3-6-1

-11 GD · 2d rest

BUF

6-2-2

+9 GD · 1d rest

1.011

SEA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Sabres drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Sabres drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
A. Lyon is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
The Kraken are underwater at -11 goal differential over 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

SEA

Expected in goal

P. Grubauer

2 days rest.909 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

back-to-back.789 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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