Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Thu, Apr 9 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at NJD

Penguins run the Devils off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Apr 9
PITPittsburgh Penguins5NJDNew Jersey Devils2
The verdict · earned

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

PIT 5 · NJD 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:02 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

New Jersey's 41 percent shot-attempt share belied the underlying reality—their expected goals totaled 2.47 for a 33 percent split, revealing how much volume masked inferior shot quality. Pittsburgh's efficiency at 0.080 expected goals per attempt versus 0.059 compounded the deficit into the 5-2 final.

The Penguins created eight rebound opportunities with one conversion. The Devils created three with none, illustrating Pittsburgh's edge in net-front positioning. Both teams scored two goals on the rush—an even split in transition—but the underlying advantage proved decisive elsewhere.

E. Chinakhov finished with 1G, 2A in 14:23, leading the night. E. Karlsson added 1G, 1A in 22:30, his wrist shot from the wing in the third period serving as a momentum inflection. E. Malkin chipped in 1G, 1A in 17:13.

J. Allen stopped 25 of 29 shots (0.862 SV%) and posted a plus-1.02 performance versus expected, suggesting he made saves the underlying metrics didn't forecast. S. Skinner turned aside 19 of 21 (0.905 SV%), solid against superior threats.

High-danger chances finished 7–5 in Pittsburgh's favor, crystallizing the pattern: New Jersey generated volume without corresponding danger.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 9
PIT
5
NJD
2

Penguins run the Devils off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.0 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
5.02
NJD
2.47
67% of the chances33%

The board read PIT 5, NJD 2. The chances read PIT 5.0, NJD 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
−0.0
goals above expected
PIT5.02 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD2.47 expected · 2 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
  1. P1 04:53PITB. Rust1–0
  2. P2 09:51NJDP. Cotter1–1
  3. P2 11:43PITT. Novak2–1
  4. P2 11:52PITE. Chinakhov3–1
  5. P2 15:07NJDJ. Hughes3–2
  6. P3 06:50PITE. Malkin4–2
  7. P3 17:00PITE. KarlssonEN5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
45 shots
5
Final
77 shots
NJD
32 shots
2
PIT attackNJD attack
PIT NJD Goal
45
shots · 5 in
32
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITNJD
2 / 7
2.56 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.08 xG
2 / 17
1.88 xG
Medium
0 / 8
0.84 xG
1 / 39
0.58 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.55 xG

The Penguins buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Allen
+1.0
NJD · 25/29
B
S. Skinner
+0.5
PIT · 19/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins run the Devils 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 15–10
  1. 04:53PITB. Rust(E. Chinakhov, K. Letang)1–0
2ndshots 8–6
  1. 09:51NJDP. Cotter(D. Hamilton, B. Halonen)1–1
  2. 11:43PITT. Novak(E. Malkin, E. Karlsson)2–1
  3. 11:52PITE. Chinakhov(R. Shea, S. Crosby)3–1
  4. 15:07NJDJ. Hughes(J. Siegenthaler, C. Brown)3–2
3rdshots 7–5
  1. 06:50PITE. Malkin(S. Crosby, E. Chinakhov)4–2
  2. 17:00PITE. Karlssonempty net(P. Wotherspoon, N. Acciari)5–2

score reads PIT–NJD

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.02
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.032
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
60.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.02Expected goals2.47
PIT 67% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal21
7High-danger chances5
63All attempts (Corsi)42
Adjusted for score: PIT 56% · NJD 44%
Faceoffs · NJD won47%off47%neu41%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT2 / 7 · 2.56 xG
NJD1 / 5 · 1.08 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT2 / 17 · 1.88 xG
NJD0 / 8 · 0.84 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT1 / 39 · 0.58 xG
NJD1 / 29 · 0.55 xG

NJD went 0-for-8 from medium danger on 0.84 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
5 G · 5.02 xG · -0.0
NJD
2 G · 2.47 xG · -0.5
0123456

PIT finished -0.0 against expected, NJD -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST3/18
SNAP1/6
SLAP0/10
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN1/4
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/18
NJD
WRIST1/16
SNAP0/7
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND1/2
TIP IN0/3
WRAP AROUND0/2
OTHER0/10
PIT
NJD
Off the rush
2 G on 23
1.77 xG
2 G on 21
1.84 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 8
0.95 xG
0 G on 3
0.31 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 3-for-18, NJD 1-for-16. PIT 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
S. Skinner
PIT · 19/21 · .905
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.1+0.1
Medium0/80.8+0.8
Low1/290.6-0.5

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

J. Allen
NJD · 25/29 · .862
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.6+0.6
Medium2/171.9-0.1
Low1/390.6-0.4

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
45 shots
5
Final
77 shots
NJD
32 shots
2
PIT attackNJD attack
PIT NJD Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, NJD 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. Chinakhov
#59 · R · PIT
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 14:23 on ice · +2
E. Karlsson
#65 · D · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:30 on ice
E. Malkin
#71 · C · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:13 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, 11:00 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 2.6-2.6 with New Jersey at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as exists.

Statistically, these teams are nearly matched at even strength. Pittsburgh's expected-goals edge (51.0% xG%) mirrors New Jersey's Corsi advantage (51.0%), suggesting parity in shot generation. The Devils carry a PDO of 0.971—running cold and due for positive regression. Pittsburgh arrives on four days of rest; New Jersey on two.

Rickard Rakell remains Pittsburgh's primary offensive engine. His 13 goals and 12.1% shooting percentage far exceed his 1.01 xG/60, implying unusually hot finishing. Filip Hallander provided secondary generation at 1.28 xG/60 but is likely out on IR pending evaluation.

New Jersey counters with Jack Hughes, who leads with 18 goals despite 0.88 xG/60—evidence of elite finishing running hot. Timo Meier's 1.08 xG/60 and 13 goals arrive with just 6.7% shooting, well below his underlying output and ripe for regression toward the mean.

Defensively, Caleb Jones represents Pittsburgh's weak link, with Johnathan Kovacevic filling that role for New Jersey.

The Devils' statistical cold snap and rest disadvantage cut against them. Rakell's elite conversion is Pittsburgh's primary edge. Meier and Hughes's underlying metrics suggest New Jersey is overdue for correction, though this matchup is tight enough that it barely shifts the odds. The rest advantage tilts this toward Pittsburgh, but only marginally.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 51%
51%
NJD
Model favorite
49%
51%
PIT50NJD

NJD by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.6–2.6 NJD; 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 →NJD
51.0%50.0%
50.0%51.0%
2.662.45
2.552.50
2.451.66
2.122.23
1.0120.971

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.971) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PIT
6-4-0
+5 GD · 4d rest
NJD
5-4-1
+1 GD · 2d rest
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Penguins have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
4 days rest.935 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NJD
Expected in goal
J. Markstrom
2 days rest.789 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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
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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page