Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · FLA at PIT

Penguins pull away from the Panthers

FinalSun, Apr 5

FLAFlorida Panthers2 PITPittsburgh Penguins5

The verdict · stolen

The Penguins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.07–3.57 and won anyway.

FLA 2 · PIT 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:32 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 won 5–2, yet the Panthers held the advantage in expected goals, 4.07–3.57. This scoreline looked closer in the underlying data than the final tally.

Goaltending made the difference. A. Silovs stopped 29 of 31 shots (0.935 SV%, +2.07 above expected), while D. Tarasov surrendered 5 goals on 23 shots (0.783 SV%, −1.43 below expected). When one goalie needs to have those, and one exceeds his workload that badly, the outcome is set.

High-danger chances finished 7–7, so neither team dominated the dangerous areas. But Pittsburgh generated far more quality per shot (0.081 xG/shot vs. Florida's 0.057), and it showed in rush play: the Penguins scored 4 goals on 26 rush chances while the Panthers managed 2 on 38. Pittsburgh made their volume matter.

S. Crosby led with 1 goal and 2 assists in 17:34. B. Rust added 1 goal and 1 assist in 18:50. R. Rakell scored twice in 18:16, anchoring Pittsburgh's finish.

The Panthers wasted their chance at the workload advantage. Florida couldn't convert on high-danger chances (0/7) and cashed in twice from low-danger areas, the kind of variance that seldom repeats.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 5

FLA

PIT

Penguins pull away from the Panthers

Chances 4.1 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

4.07

PIT

3.57

53% of the chances47%

The board read FLA 2, PIT 5. The chances read FLA 4.1, PIT 3.6.

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

Luck check

PIT

+1.4

goals above expected

PIT3.57 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA4.07 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers 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 11:00PITE. Soderblom0–1
P1 16:15FLAC. Schwindt1–1
P1 16:50PITS. Crosby1–2
P1 19:12PITR. RakellPP1–3
P2 18:08PITR. Rakell1–4
P3 03:48PITB. Rust1–5
P3 14:15FLAC. VerhaeghePP2–5

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

55 shots

Final

90 shots

PIT

35 shots

FLA PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLAPIT

0 / 7

1.44 xG

High danger

1 / 7

1.47 xG

0 / 14

1.61 xG

Medium

2 / 17

1.74 xG

2 / 51

1.02 xG

Low

2 / 20

0.36 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 7 from the slot.

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

In the net

A. Silovs

+2.1

PIT · 29/31

D-

D. Tarasov

−1.4

FLA · 18/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins pull away from the Panthers

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 7–8

11:00PITE. Soderblom0–1
16:15FLAC. Schwindt(V. Hinostroza, G. Forsling)1–1
16:50PITS. Crosby(E. Chinakhov, B. Rust)1–2
19:12PITR. Rakellpower play(S. Crosby, E. Malkin)1–3

2ndshots 11–10

18:08PITR. Rakell(E. Malkin, T. Novak)1–4

3rdshots 13–5

03:48PITB. Rust(S. Crosby, E. Chinakhov)1–5
14:15FLAC. Verhaeghepower play(S. Jones)2–5

score reads FLA–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.57

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.086

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

37.9%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.07Expected goals3.57

FLA 53% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal23

7High-danger chances7

72All attempts (Corsi)44

Adjusted for score: FLA 68% · PIT 32%

Faceoffs · PIT won21%off50%neu59%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA0 / 7 · 1.44 xG

PIT1 / 7 · 1.47 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA0 / 14 · 1.61 xG

PIT2 / 17 · 1.74 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA2 / 51 · 1.02 xG

PIT2 / 20 · 0.36 xG

PIT went 2-for-20 from low danger on 0.36 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

2 G · 4.07 xG · -2.1

PIT

5 G · 3.57 xG · +1.4

0123456

FLA finished -2.1 against expected, PIT +1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST2/34

TIP IN0/8

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/6

SNAP0/2

BAT0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/17

PIT

WRIST2/21

TIP IN0/4

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND1/1

SNAP2/3

BAT0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/9

FLA

PIT

Off the rush

2 G on 38

2.35 xG

4 G on 26

2.44 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.60 xG

1 G on 5

0.95 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 2-for-34, PIT 2-for-21. PIT scored 4 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

D. Tarasov

FLA · 18/23 · .783

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.5+0.5

Medium2/171.7-0.3

Low2/200.4-1.6

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

A. Silovs

PIT · 29/31 · .935

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.4+1.4

Medium0/141.6+1.6

Low2/511.0-1.0

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

55 shots

Final

90 shots

PIT

35 shots

FLA PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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

S. Crosby

#87 · C · PIT

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 17:34 on ice · +2

B. Rust

#17 · R · PIT

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:50 on ice · +2

R. Rakell

#67 · R · PIT

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 18:16 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Apr 5

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:31 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 gives Pittsburgh 54% win probability in a projected 2.5–2.7 goal game. That is as close to a toss-up as preseason mathematics allows.

Florida has been a mess lately, outscored by 8 goals over their last ten games. But the season-long 5v5 numbers tell a closer story. At even strength, the Panthers generate 49.0% expected goals against Pittsburgh's 51.0%—negligible separation. Pittsburgh's 50.0% shot share looks sharper on paper, but Florida's 52.0% Corsi means they're still controlling possession. The real signal: Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO says the Penguins have caught all the lucky bounces, while Florida's 0.989 PDO suggests they've been snakebitten.

Both starter situations are clouded. A. Silovs and D. Tarasov are each on a back-to-back, inviting either tired performances or unexpected bench appearances.

Sam Bennett is Florida's motor: 18 goals, 19 assists, 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes, six high-danger chances, and 13.1% shooting. Brad Marchand carries 0.93 xG/60 and 19.5% shooting, but hasn't played in 30 days—likely unavailable.

For Pittsburgh, Rickard Rakell is the primary weapon: 1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, three high-danger chances, 12.1% shooting. Filip Hallander's 1.28 expected goals per 60 is elite-level, but he's been recalled from conditioning and is undergoing evaluation, making him unavailable.

Both teams are oddities on the scoresheet: neither has recorded a high-danger goal or rebound goal in the tracked sample, suggesting either sample noise or a tactical wrinkle worth monitoring. Florida's defensive weak link is Marchand (when available); Pittsburgh's is Caleb Jones.

Without clarity on the injury front, this truly is a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 54%

54%

PIT

Model favorite

46%

54%

FLA50PIT

PIT by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 2.5–2.7 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

FLA← edge

edge →PIT

49.0%51.0%

52.0%50.0%

2.482.66

2.562.55

1.982.45

2.212.12

0.9891.012

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

FLA

4-6-0

-8 GD · 1d rest

PIT

5-4-1

+1 GD · 1d rest

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

A. Silovs is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Tarasov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Panthers are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

FLA

Expected in goal

D. Tarasov

back-to-back.750 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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.

PIT

Expected in goal

A. Silovs

back-to-back.826 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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