Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Mon, Mar 30 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at NYI

Penguins run the Islanders off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Mar 30
PITPittsburgh Penguins8NYINew York Islanders3
The verdict · earned

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

PIT 8 · NYI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:31 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 scored 8 goals, but expected goals said they should score only 5.36. That 2.64-goal overperformance — whether elite finishes or fortunate bounces — was the truest evidence of dominance: they didn't just beat the Islanders, they made their own luck.

The underlying play was no contest. Pittsburgh controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals (5.36–2.94) despite the shot attempts staying relatively close (32–23 for Pittsburgh). The Islanders held just 42% of shot attempts, a gap that looked modest until you looked at quality: Pittsburgh's xG per shot was 0.084 versus New York's 0.055.

The Islanders had moments. They scored 2 goals on 20 rush chances and created 3 rebound opportunities. Bryan Rust's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 16:16) proved to be the inflection point — after that, the game was over.

But Pittsburgh's rush attack was merciless: 5 goals on 32 chances. Their rebound work was better too (2 goals on 8 opportunities). When high-danger chances broke 9–5 for the visitors, the rout was sealed.

Goaltending told the rest of the story. A. Silovs stopped 20 of 23 for Pittsburgh. I. Sorokin allowed 2.1 goals more than expected, an unusually poor performance for the workload he faced. His understudy, D. Rittich, arrived in the third period to face 3 shots on a blown-out game.

The Three Stars:

  • #39 A. Mantha (PIT) — 2G, 1A in 18:13
  • #16 J. Brazeau (PIT) — 3A in 14:23
  • #28 P. Wotherspoon (PIT) — 2A in 20:39

Final: PIT 8 – NYI 3

Data: NHL API, MoneyPuck xG model

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 30
PIT
8
NYI
3

Penguins run the Islanders off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.4 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
5.36
NYI
2.94
65% of the chances35%

The board read PIT 8, NYI 3. The chances read PIT 5.4, NYI 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+2.6
goals above expected
PIT5.36 expected · 8 scored
Expected
Scored
NYI2.94 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins scored 2.6 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 01:27NYIA. LeePP0–1
  2. P2 02:56NYIM. Barzal0–2
  3. P2 06:41PITE. Soderblom1–2
  4. P2 09:17NYIB. Schenn1–3
  5. P2 11:01PITR. RakellSH2–3
  6. P2 13:29PITR. Shea3–3
  7. P2 14:35PITA. Mantha4–3
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
50 shots
8
Final
85 shots
NYI
35 shots
3
PIT attackNYI attack
PIT NYI Goal
50
shots · 8 in
35
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITNYI
2 / 9
2.31 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.32 xG
5 / 20
2.54 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.19 xG
1 / 35
0.51 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.42 xG

The Penguins buried 2 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Rittich
+4.4
NYI · 2/3
C
A. Silovs
−0.1
PIT · 20/23
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins run the Islanders 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 11–7no goals
    2ndshots 13–8
    1. 01:27NYIA. Leepower play(A. Boqvist, J. Pageau)0–1
    2. 02:56NYIM. Barzal(C. Ritchie, A. Boqvist)0–2
    3. 06:41PITE. Soderblom(C. Dewar, N. Acciari)1–2
    4. 09:17NYIB. Schenn(M. Barzal, C. Ritchie)1–3
    5. 11:01PITR. Rakellshorthanded(B. Rust, P. Wotherspoon)2–3
    6. 13:29PITR. Shea(A. Mantha, S. Crosby)3–3
    7. 14:35PITA. Mantha(J. Brazeau, P. Wotherspoon)4–3
    8. 17:18PITA. Mantha(J. Brazeau, K. Letang)5–3
    3rdshots 8–8
    1. 06:06PITA. Hayes(B. Kindel, T. Novak)6–3
    2. 07:54PITR. Rakell(J. Brazeau, S. Girard)7–3
    3. 16:16PITB. Rust(S. Crosby, K. Letang)8–3

    score reads PIT–NYI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.36
    PIT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.6
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.068
    PIT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    54.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.36Expected goals2.94
    PIT 65% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal23
    9High-danger chances5
    64All attempts (Corsi)53
    Adjusted for score: PIT 53% · NYI 47%
    Faceoffs · NYI won80%off65%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PIT2 / 9 · 2.31 xG
    NYI1 / 5 · 1.32 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PIT5 / 20 · 2.54 xG
    NYI1 / 11 · 1.19 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PIT1 / 35 · 0.51 xG
    NYI1 / 37 · 0.42 xG

    PIT went 5-for-20 from medium danger on 2.54 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PIT
    8 G · 5.36 xG · +2.6
    NYI
    3 G · 2.94 xG · +0.1
    0123456789

    PIT finished +2.6 against expected, NYI +0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PIT
    SNAP2/14
    WRIST1/14
    BACKHAND2/9
    TIP IN0/7
    SLAP1/2
    DEFLECTED2/4
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/14
    NYI
    SNAP2/23
    WRIST0/4
    BACKHAND1/3
    TIP IN0/1
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    OTHER0/18
    PIT
    NYI
    Off the rush
    5 G on 32
    3.16 xG
    2 G on 20
    2.33 xG
    Off rebounds
    2 G on 8
    1.32 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.33 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 2-for-14, NYI 2-for-23. PIT 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. Silovs
    PIT · 20/23 · .870
    -0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.3+0.3
    Medium1/111.2+0.2
    Low1/370.4-0.6

    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

    I. Sorokin
    NYI · 22/29 · .759
    -1.6
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.3+0.3
    Medium5/202.5-2.5
    Low1/350.5-0.5

    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

    D. Rittich
    NYI · 2/3 · .667
    +4.4
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.3+0.3
    Medium5/202.5-2.5
    Low1/350.5-0.5

    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

    85 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PIT
    50 shots
    8
    Final
    85 shots
    NYI
    35 shots
    3
    PIT attackNYI attack
    PIT NYI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, NYI 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. Mantha
    #39 · R · PIT
    2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:13 on ice · +4
    J. Brazeau
    #16 · R · PIT
    0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 14:23 on ice · +3
    P. Wotherspoon
    #28 · D · PIT
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:39 on ice · +3
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Mar 30
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:29 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 2.7–2.6 Pittsburgh advantage with the Penguins at exactly 50% win probability—the definition of a coin flip. The underlying play belongs to Pittsburgh: 51.0% expected goals against 48.0% for New York, with shot attempts (50.0% Corsi vs. 49.0%) backing that edge. But when the gap is this thin, puck luck and execution matter as much as process. Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO suggests they've caught some favorable bounces; New York's 0.993 means variance could swing either way.

    Rickard Rakell is the player to watch for Pittsburgh—1.01 xG/60 with 13G 13A and a 12.1% shooting rate means he's converting chances at a high clip and has scored three high-danger goals this season. Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60) generates volume from the offensive zone, though he's likely out after being recalled from the AHL for further evaluation. That's a significant absence if it holds.

    For New York, Anders Lee (1.20 xG/60) has 9G 20A but only a 6.4% shooting rate—he's creating opportunities faster than converting them. Bo Horvat's 0.87 xG/60 understates his impact: 18G 10A at 12.8% shooting suggests he's one of the more efficient finishers in the lineup when opportunities arrive.

    Both teams have produced 0% of their goals from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds—a statistical oddity that either reflects unusual luck or warrants skepticism. Pittsburgh's defensive concern is Caleb Jones; New York's is Alexander Romanov. In a game this even, those weak links could be the difference.

    The Penguins own the underlying play, but the Islanders are close enough that New York's ability to stay within the margins makes this a genuine toss-up rather than a Pittsburgh lock.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 51%
    51%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    PIT50NYI

    PIT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.7–2.6 NYI; 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 →NYI
    51.0%48.0%
    50.0%49.0%
    2.662.48
    2.552.69
    2.451.78
    2.121.94
    1.0120.993

    PIT 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 · No games yet
    PIT
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    NYI
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    NYI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    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
    NYI
    Anders Lee9G 20A
    1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
    Bo Horvat18G 10A
    0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page