Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
Breakdown · CBJ at BUF

Sabres shut out the Blue Jackets, 5-0

The verdict · stolen

The Sabres stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.78–2.69 and won anyway.

CBJ 0 · BUF 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:56 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

Buffalo obliterated Columbus 5-0 while getting outchanced 58-42 in expected goals—the kind of scoreline that makes xG models question their purpose. The Blue Jackets created 3.78 expected goals to Buffalo's 2.69, but found themselves on the wrong end of a 5-0 mercy.

C. Ellis, Buffalo's goaltender, accounted for nearly all of the gap. He stopped 37 of 37 shots—a 1.000 save percentage—while playing 3.78 goals above his expected level. When a goalie saves four additional goals beyond model expectations in a single night, the scoreboard tells one story and the underlying metrics tell another. Ellis was the only reason this wasn't Columbus's night.

The Blue Jackets couldn't solve a simple problem: they generated quality chances but converted none. They were 0 for 6 on high-danger opportunities; Buffalo countered with 3 goals on 5 such chances, a 60% efficiency rate. High-danger conversion isn't usually this lopsided. Greaves surrendered 1.31 more goals than expected despite facing 23 shots—an unlucky workload distribution.

Buffalo's dominance came from a different dimension. They scored four goals on 25 rush chances and orchestrated the attack through L. Stanley, who recorded two assists in just 16:19 of ice time. J. Doan finished with two goals in 14:42; J. Norris added two assists in 14:36.

The turning point arrived in the first period when Rasmus Dahlin's sharp-angle wrist shot—P3, 16:55—beat Greaves clean. It was prescient: Buffalo would make every difficult opportunity count while Columbus's cleaner looks bounced away empty.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 9
CBJ
0
BUF
5

Sabres shut out the Blue Jackets, 5-0

Chances 3.8 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
3.78
BUF
2.69
59% of the chances42%

The board read CBJ 0, BUF 5. The chances read CBJ 3.8, BUF 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+2.3
goals above expected
BUF2.69 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ3.78 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sabres scored 2.3 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. P1 13:41BUFP. Krebs0–1
  2. P3 07:19BUFJ. Doan0–2
  3. P3 13:21BUFJ. Quinn0–3
  4. P3 13:46BUFJ. Doan0–4
  5. P3 16:55BUFR. DahlinEN0–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
57 shots
0
Final
92 shots
BUF
35 shots
5
CBJ attackBUF attack
CBJ BUF Goal
57
shots · 0 in
35
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJBUF
0 / 6
1.31 xG
High danger
3 / 5
1.44 xG
0 / 17
1.53 xG
Medium
1 / 8
0.67 xG
0 / 57
0.95 xG
Low
1 / 33
0.58 xG

The Blue Jackets went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Ellis
+3.8
BUF · 37/37
D-
J. Greaves
−1.3
CBJ · 19/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres shut out the Blue Jackets, 5-0

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 10–10
  1. 13:41BUFP. Krebs(J. Norris)0–1
2ndshots 14–4no goals
    3rdshots 13–10
    1. 07:19BUFJ. Doan0–2
    2. 13:21BUFJ. Quinn(L. Stanley, J. Zucker)0–3
    3. 13:46BUFJ. Doan(Z. Benson, J. Norris)0–4
    4. 16:55BUFR. Dahlinempty net(L. Stanley, T. Kozak)0–5

    score reads CBJ–BUF

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.69
    BUF chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.109
    BUF puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    36.5%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.78Expected goals2.69
    CBJ 59% of the chance quality
    37Shots on goal24
    6High-danger chances5
    80All attempts (Corsi)46
    Adjusted for score: CBJ 67% · BUF 33%
    Faceoffs · BUF won25%off53%neu56%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CBJ0 / 6 · 1.31 xG
    BUF3 / 5 · 1.44 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CBJ0 / 17 · 1.53 xG
    BUF1 / 8 · 0.67 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CBJ0 / 57 · 0.95 xG
    BUF1 / 33 · 0.58 xG

    BUF went 3-for-5 from high danger on 1.44 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CBJ
    0 G · 3.78 xG · -3.8
    BUF
    5 G · 2.69 xG · +2.3
    0123456

    CBJ finished -3.8 against expected, BUF +2.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CBJ
    WRIST0/35
    SLAP0/9
    SNAP0/4
    TIP IN0/7
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/23
    BUF
    WRIST3/20
    SLAP0/3
    SNAP2/8
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/11
    CBJ
    BUF
    Off the rush
    0 G on 28
    2.22 xG
    4 G on 25
    1.78 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.68 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.04 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 0-for-35, BUF 3-for-20. BUF 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
    J. Greaves
    CBJ · 19/23 · .826
    -1.3
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/51.4-1.6
    Medium1/80.7-0.3
    Low1/330.6-0.4

    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

    C. Ellis
    BUF · 37/37 · 1.000
    +3.8
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.3+1.3
    Medium0/171.5+1.5
    Low0/570.9+0.9

    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

    92 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CBJ
    57 shots
    0
    Final
    92 shots
    BUF
    35 shots
    5
    CBJ attackBUF attack
    CBJ BUF Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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
    L. Stanley
    #64 · D · BUF
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:19 on ice · +2
    J. Doan
    #91 · R · BUF
    2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 14:42 on ice · +3
    J. Norris
    #9 · C · BUF
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:36 on ice · +3
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Apr 9
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:55 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 models can't separate them. The projection is 2.6–2.6 with Buffalo at 50% win probability—the definition of a pick'em.

    The underlying numbers confirm it. Columbus has 52.0% of the expected-goals share and 51.0% of the Corsi; Buffalo has 50.0% and 49.0%. The matchup is dead even at 5v5.

    One caveat: Buffalo's PDO is 1.020, the mark of a team running hot. Regression is coming for the Sabres.

    Key Players

    Columbus: Boone Jenner drives at 0.98 xG/60, with 11 goals and 21 assists. His 9.6% shooting is respectable, but just 2 high-danger goals. Mathieu Olivier adds 0.89 xG/60, 12 goals and 9 assists, with 1 high-danger goal and an efficient 13.3% shooting rate.

    Buffalo: Jason Zucker contributes 1.07 xG/60, 14 goals and 14 assists at 15.1%, including 6 high-danger goals. Josh Doan adds 1.01 xG/60, 15 goals and 18 assists at 11.5%, but only 2 high-danger goals.

    The Decider

    The soft spots matter. Conor Garland is a liability for Columbus; Jack Quinn for Buffalo. With possession and conversion metrics essentially tied—save for Buffalo's unsustainable PDO—the team that avoids breakdowns in those zones will win.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    BUF 50%
    50%
    BUF
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    CBJ50BUF

    BUF by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.6 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
    CBJ← edge
    edge →BUF
    52.0%50.0%
    51.0%49.0%
    2.632.55
    2.432.55
    2.122.35
    1.981.90
    1.0031.020

    CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    CBJ
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    BUF
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.003
    CBJ 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' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    CBJ
    Boone Jenner11G 21A
    0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
    Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
    0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% 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