Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater

Breakdown · DAL at BUF

Stars steal one from the Sabres against the run of play

Final / OTWed, Apr 15

The verdict · stolen

The Stars stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.69–3.75 and won anyway.

DAL 4 · BUF 3

◆ By the ModelJul 14, 6:55 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Raw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Stars edged the Sabres 4-3 in a shootout despite losing the xG battle 3.75–2.69. The Sabres controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5 — this was a heist.

The numbers behind the result. The Sabres held 46% of shot attempts (24–28 on goal). Expected goals finished 3.75–2.69 (58–42% split), and high-danger chances went 6–6.

Variance watch. The Sabres underperformed their xG by 0.75 goals; the Stars overperformed theirs by 1.31.

Turning point. Wyatt Johnston's wrist shot from the high slot, in the shootout.

Goaltending

J. Oettinger (DAL): 21/24 saves, 0.875 SV% (+0.75 vs expected)
C. Ellis (BUF): 25/28 saves, 0.893 SV%

Storylines

DAL stole this one. BUF owned 58% of the xG and lost.
DAL generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
DAL couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
BUF was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 28 rush chances.
DAL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 20 rush chances.
DAL created 7 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
C. Ellis was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 6 high-danger shots.

Final: DAL 4 – BUF 3 (SO)

Data: NHL API, MoneyPuck xG model

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Apr 15

DAL

BUF

Stars steal one from the Sabres against the run of play

Chances 2.7 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

2.69

BUF

3.75

42% of the chances58%

The board read DAL 4, BUF 3. The chances read DAL 2.7, BUF 3.8.

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

Luck check

DAL

+1.3

goals above expected

DAL2.69 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF3.75 expected · 3 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 02:19DALM. Bourque1–0
P1 12:48BUFJ. Norris1–1
P2 03:32BUFZ. BensonSH1–2
P2 04:24DALE. LindellPP2–2
P2 11:09BUFA. Tuch2–3
P2 16:00DALJ. Hryckowian3–3
SO 00:00BUFJ. NorrisPP3–3

+4 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

DAL

37 shots

Final

80 shots

BUF

43 shots

DAL BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALBUF

0 / 6

1.48 xG

High danger

2 / 6

1.79 xG

2 / 8

0.67 xG

Medium

0 / 12

1.31 xG

1 / 37

0.54 xG

Low

1 / 41

0.65 xG

High-danger looks: DAL 0 of 6, BUF 2 of 6.

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

In the net

B+

J. Oettinger

+0.8

DAL · 21/24

C. Ellis

−0.3

BUF · 25/28

Report card

DALBUF

OffenseC+A

DefenseFC-

TransitionFA-

Special teamsB-D-

GoaltendingBC-

DisciplineCC

LuckBD+

Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown

Why it went the way it went

Why DAL won

01Won against the run of play
02Dangerous off the rush
03Power play cashed in

Why BUF lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Deserved a better fate
03Rebound control was shaky

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Stars steal one from the Sabres against the run of play

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 / 10 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 5–10

02:19DALM. Bourque(E. Lindell, I. Lyubushkin)1–0
12:48BUFJ. Norris(Z. Benson, O. Power)1–1

2ndshots 11–7

03:32BUFZ. Bensonshorthanded(T. Kozak)1–2
04:24DALE. Lindellpower play(J. Benn, J. Hryckowian)2–2
11:09BUFA. Tuch(T. Pearson, O. Power)2–3
16:00DALJ. Hryckowian3–3

3rdshots 12–5no goals

OTshots 0–2no goals

00:00BUFJ. Norrispower play3–3
00:00DALJ. Robertsonpower play3–3
00:00BUFJ. Quinnpower play3–3
00:00DALM. Duchenepower play3–3
00:00DALW. Johnstonpower play3–3

score reads DAL–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.69

DAL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.008

DAL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

46.4%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.69Expected goals3.75

BUF 58% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal24

6High-danger chances6

51All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: DAL 46% · BUF 54%

Faceoffs · BUF won50%off67%neu42%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL0 / 6 · 1.48 xG

BUF2 / 6 · 1.79 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL2 / 8 · 0.67 xG

BUF0 / 12 · 1.31 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL1 / 37 · 0.54 xG

BUF1 / 41 · 0.65 xG

DAL went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.48 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

4 G · 2.69 xG · +1.3

BUF

3 G · 3.75 xG · -0.8

012345

DAL finished +1.3 against expected, BUF -0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

WRIST2/27

SNAP1/5

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/0

OTHER0/14

BUF

WRIST1/26

SNAP2/8

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/16

DAL

BUF

Off the rush

2 G on 20

1.26 xG

3 G on 28

2.52 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 7

1.25 xG

0 G on 2

0.56 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 2-for-27, BUF 1-for-26. BUF scored 3 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. Oettinger

DAL · 21/24 · .875

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/61.8-0.2

Medium0/121.3+1.3

Low1/410.7-0.3

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 · 25/28 · .893

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.5+1.5

Medium2/80.7-1.3

Low1/370.5-0.5

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

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionDALBUF

Offense

▸Basis

DAL Created 2.69 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 6 high-danger shots (1.48 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.26 xG).

BUF Created 3.75 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 6 high-danger shots (1.79 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.52 xG).

C+

Defense

▸Basis

DAL Allowed 3.75 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 6 high-danger shots (1.79 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.52 xG).

BUF Allowed 2.69 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 6 high-danger shots (1.48 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.26 xG).

C-

Transition

▸Basis

DAL Rush shots 20–28, rush xG 1.26–2.52 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

BUF Rush shots 28–20, rush xG 2.52–1.26 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

A-

Special teams

▸Basis

DAL 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.07 PP xG.

BUF 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.97 PP xG.

B-

D-

Goaltending

▸Basis

DAL +0.75 goals saved above expected on 24 shots against.

BUF -0.31 goals saved above expected on 28 shots against.

C-

Discipline

▸Basis

DAL Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

BUF Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

DAL Finishing +0.31 goals vs xG plus +0.75 GSAx of save luck = +1.06 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

BUF Finishing -0.75 goals vs xG plus -0.31 GSAx of save luck = -1.06 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

D+

Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately

What the model flagged

WARNINGDAL

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 28 rush shots worth 2.52 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHBUF

Dangerous off the rush

3 goals on 28 rush shots worth 2.52 xG.

SURPRISEDAL

Won against the run of play

The Stars took it 4-3 in a shootout with only 42% of expected goals (2.69–3.75).

LUCKDAL

Wasted the best looks

0-for-6 on high-danger chances worth 1.48 xG — that conversion rate won't stay at zero.

WARNINGBUF

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 20 rush shots worth 1.26 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHDAL

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 20 rush shots worth 1.26 xG.

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

37 shots

Final

80 shots

BUF

43 shots

DAL BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL 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

Z. Benson

#6 · L · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:22 on ice · +2

O. Power

#25 · D · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:17 on ice · +1

E. Lindell

#23 · D · DAL

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:14 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Apr 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:49 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 2.5-2.5 game with Buffalo at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as they come.

The underlying metrics explain why. Dallas posts 51.0% expected goals share at 5-on-5 to Buffalo's 50.0%. Corsi favors the Sabres slightly, 49.0% to 47.0%. Both teams are running nearly identical PDO — Dallas at 1.024, Buffalo at 1.020 — meaning both are riding unsustainable luck and due for regression.

Goaltending introduces the first variable: U. Luukkonen faces a back-to-back and may not start. If Buffalo opts for a backup, that tilts the matchup considerably. If Luukkonen plays tired, the Sabres lose a structural advantage.

Dallas's offense runs through Jason Robertson. He carries 25 goals and 21 assists with elite xG production (0.96 per 60) and a 12.4% shooting rate that suggests sustainable conversion. Michael Bunting supports at 0.83 xG/60 with only 8 goals, indicating he's due positive regression. Buffalo answers with Jason Zucker, who leads in expected creation at 1.07 xG/60 and has banked 14 goals with 6 high-danger chances. Josh Doan pairs with him at 1.01 xG/60, carrying 15 goals at an 11.5% shooting rate.

Both rosters share a peculiar weakness: neither team converts high-danger chances, posting 0% high-danger goal rates. Both also show 0% rebound goal rates. Dallas's defensive liability is Tyler Myers. Buffalo's is Jack Quinn. These weak links will determine which team escapes the other's scoring chances.

The verdict is as simple as the model suggests: this is a coin flip. Dallas has the edge in expected goal share. Buffalo has the marginally better play-driving rate and the marginal goaltending advantage if Luukkonen is fresh. Regression could cut either way. Bet the line only if it lands on your side of 51%.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 51%

51%

BUF

Model favorite

49%

51%

DAL50BUF

BUF by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.5–2.5 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

DAL← edge

edge →BUF

51.0%50.0%

47.0%49.0%

2.362.55

2.292.55

2.072.35

1.681.90

1.0241.020

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.020) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DAL

6-3-1

+4 GD · 2d rest

BUF

6-3-1

+4 GD · 1d rest

1.024

DAL 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.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DAL

Expected in goal

C. DeSmith

2 days rest.815 last start

Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF

Expected in goal

U. Luukkonen

back-to-back.938 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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

Back to the front page