Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · BUF at CHI

Sabres run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Apr 13

BUFBuffalo Sabres5 CHIChicago Blackhawks1

The verdict · earned

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

BUF 5 · CHI 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:36 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's 5–1 win looked more decisive than the underlying metrics suggest—goaltending variance turned a quality edge into a rout. The Sabres controlled 61% of expected goals at 5v5 (3.75–2.43), but U. Luukkonen's excellence and S. Knight's struggles added roughly a goal to the final margin: Luukkonen stopped 1.4 goals above expected while Knight gave up 1.3 more than expected.

Buffalo won shot attempts 26–16. High-danger chances broke 8–5 in their favor. Chicago's underlying performance wasn't catastrophic—just incomplete, hampered by poor goaltending.

The Sabres were lethal on the rush: four goals from 24 chances. They crashed the net effectively, creating six rebound opportunities that applied pressure. R. McLeod's wrist shot from the high slot (18:35, third period) marked Buffalo's breakthrough, though the Sabres had already seized control.

Luukkonen finished with a 0.938 save percentage; Knight managed 0.808. Chicago held 39% of expected goals and 38% of shot attempts—respectable for a road team that trailed early. Knight's poor night masked otherwise competitive underlying play.

A. Tuch (BUF) — 1G, 1A in 21:23
R. Dahlin (BUF) — 2A in 20:59
T. Thompson (BUF) — 2G in 17:31

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 13

BUF

CHI

Sabres run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.8 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

3.75

CHI

2.43

61% of the chances39%

The board read BUF 5, CHI 1. The chances read BUF 3.8, CHI 2.4.

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

Luck check

BUF

+1.3

goals above expected

BUF3.75 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.43 expected · 1 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

P1 03:58CHIR. GreeneSH0–1
P1 19:02BUFJ. Norris1–1
P2 13:00BUFT. Thompson2–1
P3 05:38BUFA. Tuch3–1
P3 11:13BUFT. Thompson4–1
P3 18:35BUFR. McLeod5–1

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

41 shots

Final

70 shots

CHI

29 shots

BUF CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFCHI

1 / 8

1.75 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.11 xG

4 / 13

1.41 xG

Medium

0 / 7

0.83 xG

0 / 28

0.59 xG

Low

0 / 27

0.49 xG

High-danger looks: BUF 1 of 8, CHI 1 of 5.

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

In the net

B+

U. Luukkonen

+1.4

BUF · 15/16

D-

S. Knight

−1.3

CHI · 21/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres run the Blackhawks 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 6–5

03:58CHIR. Greeneshorthanded(I. Mikheyev)0–1
19:02BUFJ. Norris(J. Doan)1–1

2ndshots 12–4

13:00BUFT. Thompson(A. Tuch)2–1

3rdshots 8–7

05:38BUFA. Tuch(R. Dahlin, L. Stanley)3–1
11:13BUFT. Thompson(R. Dahlin, J. Zucker)4–1
18:35BUFR. McLeod(Z. Benson, O. Power)5–1

score reads BUF–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.75

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.076

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

55.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.75Expected goals2.43

BUF 61% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal16

8High-danger chances5

49All attempts (Corsi)39

Adjusted for score: BUF 54% · CHI 46%

Faceoffs · CHI won55%off23%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF1 / 8 · 1.75 xG

CHI1 / 5 · 1.11 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF4 / 13 · 1.41 xG

CHI0 / 7 · 0.83 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF0 / 28 · 0.59 xG

CHI0 / 27 · 0.49 xG

BUF went 4-for-13 from medium danger on 1.41 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

5 G · 3.75 xG · +1.3

CHI

1 G · 2.43 xG · -1.4

0123456

BUF finished +1.3 against expected, CHI -1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

WRIST4/25

TIP IN0/6

SNAP0/2

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP1/3

DEFLECTED0/2

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/8

CHI

WRIST1/18

TIP IN0/3

SNAP0/3

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/10

BUF

CHI

Off the rush

4 G on 24

2.60 xG

1 G on 21

1.77 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

0.54 xG

0 G on 1

0.28 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 4-for-25, CHI 1-for-18. 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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 15/16 · .938

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.1+0.1

Medium0/70.8+0.8

Low0/270.5+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

S. Knight

CHI · 21/26 · .808

-1.3

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/81.8+0.8

Medium4/131.4-2.6

Low0/280.6+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

70 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

41 shots

Final

70 shots

CHI

29 shots

BUF CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF left, CHI 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. Tuch

#89 · R · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:23 on ice · +1

R. Dahlin

#26 · D · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 20:59 on ice · +2

T. Thompson

#72 · C · BUF

2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 17:31 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Apr 13

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:34 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 2.7 goals for Buffalo, 2.5 for Chicago, with the Sabres at 54% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as the numbers get.

But the game isn't featureless. Buffalo owns the underlying play—50.0% xG at 5v5 against Chicago's 42.0%, a structural advantage that shows up in shot quality across the board. The Sabres are also 5-3-2 in their last 10, riding offensive momentum. Chicago, meanwhile, is -19 in goal differential over the same stretch, which is the kind of deficit that compounds.

What tempers Buffalo's edge: the Sabres' 1.020 PDO suggests they're running hot on bounces, and regression is the iron law of hockey. Chicago gets the rest advantage—2 days versus Buffalo's 4—a small but real lever when the underlying game is this tight.

On paper, here's where the talent sits. Buffalo's Jason Zucker leads with 1.07 xG per 60, paired with 14 goals, 6 of those high-danger, and a 15.1% shooting rate that leaves room to come back to Earth. Josh Doan runs 1.01 xG per 60 with 15 goals and 18 assists, though only 2 came from high-danger chances—efficiency through volume rather than quality.

Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi at 0.85 xG per 60, but he's converted at 18.0%—the kind of finishing that worries opposing coaches. He has 20 goals and 7 high-danger tallies. Connor Bedard, the headline name, sits at 0.82 xG per 60, which is healthy, though his 27 assists suggest he's playing the engine role more than the trigger. Only 5 of his 17 goals came from high-danger areas.

The defensive pictures are worth noting. Buffalo's Jack Quinn stands out as a weak point; Chicago's Anton Frondell is similarly exposed. Whoever can turn play toward those zones will find room.

The Sabres have the process advantage. The Blackhawks have the rest day and Tyler Bertuzzi converting at a high rate. The flip is still live.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 54%

54%

BUF

Model favorite

54%

46%

BUF50CHI

BUF by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.7–2.5 CHI; 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

BUF← edge

edge →CHI

50.0%42.0%

49.0%46.0%

2.552.17

2.552.94

2.351.84

1.902.41

1.0200.996

BUF holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.996) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

5-3-2

-1 GD · 4d rest

CHI

2-7-1

-19 GD · 2d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI 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 42.0%.

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 42.0%.
The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (5-3-2 in their last 10).
The Blackhawks are underwater at -19 goal differential over their last 10.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Sabres have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

BUF

Expected in goal

C. Ellis

4 days rest1.000 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI

Expected in goal

A. Soderblom

2 days rest.821 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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

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

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page