Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Mon, Sep 21 · the slate
Breakdown · BUF at PIT · Preseason

Penguins run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Sep 21
BUFBuffalo Sabres1PITPittsburgh Penguins4
The verdict · earned

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

BUF 1 · PIT 4
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 28, 4:03 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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 beat the Sabres 4-1, and the underlying numbers backed every moment of the dominance. Pittsburgh controlled the game through relentless transition play.

The Penguins held 54% of shot attempts and 64% of expected goals, with 3.71 to Buffalo's 2.12. More significantly, Pittsburgh created four high-danger chances to Buffalo's one—a gap that predicted the scoreline perfectly.

C. Dewar opened the scoring on the rush 10 seconds after a turnover, then B. Rust extended the lead with a power-play wrist shot from 25 feet. A. Hayes added a third before the end of the second. Buffalo's only answer came when J. Richard scored on their own power play, but the Sabres never found a way to keep pace.

A. Lyon made 16 of 19 saves for Buffalo at 0.842 save percentage—respectable, but the Sabres underperformed their expected goals by 1.12 runs. The chances were there, and they couldn't finish. Pittsburgh's quality on offense was decisive: the Penguins shot at 0.061 expected goals per attempt versus Buffalo's 0.041, a measurable gap that showed in two goals scored off 30 rush opportunities.

E. Soderblom sealed it into an empty net in the third, and S. Murashov stopped 13 straight shots to close. Pittsburgh's transition dominance decided this one.

The goals

  • PIT 0–1, 10:27 of the first. C. Dewar, wrist shot from 45 feet, a 3% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Lyon. Assists: B. Rust, A. Kuzmenko. 10 seconds after a BUF giveaway by T. Kozak. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • PIT 0–2, 12:16 of the second on the power play. B. Rust, wrist shot from 25 feet, a 14% chance by the model, past A. Lyon. Assists: H. Lapierre, K. Letang. 9 seconds after a PIT missed shot by T. Broz. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • BUF 1–2, 18:32 of the second on the power play. J. Richard, wrist shot from 36 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Blomqvist. Assists: T. Bordeleau, Z. Metsa. J. Blomqvist was 482 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • PIT 1–3, 19:58 of the second. A. Hayes, wrist shot from 22 feet, an 11% chance by the model, past A. Lyon. 3 seconds after a PIT takeaway by A. Hayes. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • PIT 1–4, 18:13 of the third into an empty net. E. Soderblom, wrist shot from 17 feet, a 51% chance by the model (off the rush). Assists: B. Rust, C. Dewar.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Preseason · Sep 21
BUF
1
PIT
4

Penguins run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
2.12
PIT
3.71
36% of the chances64%

The board read BUF 1, PIT 4. The chances read BUF 2.1, PIT 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+0.3
goals above expected
PIT3.71 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
BUF2.12 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
The swing
+15
win-probability points
54% → 69% for PIT
PIT 100%the game, start to finish
BUF 100%P1 · P2 · P3
PITP1 10:27

C. Dewar makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 10:27PITC. Dewar3%0–1
  2. P2 12:16PITB. RustPP14%0–2
  3. P2 18:32BUFJ. RichardPP8%1–2
  4. P2 19:58PITA. Hayes11%1–3
  5. P3 18:13PITE. SoderblomEN51%1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
35 shots
1
Final
79 shots
PIT
44 shots
4
BUF attackPIT attack
BUF PIT Goal
35
shots · 1 in
44
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFPIT
0 / 1
0.19 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.41 xG
1 / 16
1.52 xG
Medium
2 / 21
1.94 xG
0 / 35
0.41 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.37 xG

High-danger looks: BUF 0 of 1, PIT 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
S. Murashov
+1.1
PIT · 13/13 · 30:23
Best save · a 19% chance, wrist from 8 ft · P2 08:57
B+
C. Ellis
+1.0
BUF · 8/8 · 18:52 · in relief
Best save · a 32% chance, backhand from 5 ft · P3 05:03
+2 more on the full breakdown
Best skater on the ice
A+
PIT
B. Rust
R · impact 2.79
16:41
Ice time
1–2
G – A
0.39
Own xG
58%
xG share
Impact · top 4
B. Rust2.8A+
C. Dewar1.6A+
H. Lapierre1.5A+
E. Soderblom1.4A
Report card
BUFPIT
OffenseD+A
DefenseFB-
TransitionD-A-
Special teamsB+A+
GoaltendingB-B
DisciplineB-C-
LuckC-B
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why PIT won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03S. Murashov tilted the crease
Why BUF lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03PDO ran cold
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins run the Sabres 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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 5–7
  1. 10:27PITC. Dewar(B. Rust, A. Kuzmenko)0–1

    Wrist shot from 45 feet, a 3% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Lyon. 10s after a BUF giveaway by T. Kozak. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: R. Graves, J. Brazeau, C. Dewar, S. Murashov, C. Pietila, B. Kindel · against C. Sheary, D. Gilbert, J. Kulich, V. Komarov, J. Richard

2ndshots 13–12
  1. 12:16PITB. Rustpower play(H. Lapierre, K. Letang)0–2

    Wrist shot from 25 feet, a 14% chance, past A. Lyon. 9s after a PIT miss by T. Broz. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: F. Hallander, C. Dewar, E. Soderblom, J. Blomqvist, A. Hayes, H. Brunicke · against D. Gilbert, T. Kozak, R. Fiddler-Schultz, V. Komarov

  2. 18:32BUFJ. Richardpower play(T. Bordeleau, Z. Metsa)1–2

    Wrist shot from 36 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Blomqvist. J. Blomqvist was 482s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: J. Rathbone, T. Kuntar, R. Fiddler-Schultz, V. Komarov, J. Polin · against R. Graves, D. Gustafsson, E. Soderblom, J. Blomqvist, T. Howe, C. Pietila

  3. 19:58PITA. Hayes1–3

    Wrist shot from 22 feet, an 11% chance, past A. Lyon. 3s after a PIT takeaway by A. Hayes. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: K. Letang, B. Rust, T. van Riemsdyk, J. Blomqvist, T. Broz, A. Kuzmenko · against R. Johnson, A. McDonough, J. Kulich, Z. Metsa, L. Valente

3rdshots 6–9
  1. 18:13PITE. Soderblomempty net(B. Rust, C. Dewar)1–4

    Wrist shot from 17 feet, a 51% chance (off the rush).On the ice: F. Hallander, D. Gustafsson, J. Blomqvist, A. Hayes, O. Pickering, H. Brunicke · against J. Rathbone, C. Ellis, A. McDonough, T. Kuntar, T. Kozak, V. Komarov

score reads BUF–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.71
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.046
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.12Expected goals3.71
PIT 64% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal28
1High-danger chances4
52All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: BUF 52% · PIT 48%
Faceoffs · PIT won50%off65%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF0 / 1 · 0.19 xG
PIT1 / 4 · 1.41 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF1 / 16 · 1.52 xG
PIT2 / 21 · 1.94 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF0 / 35 · 0.41 xG
PIT1 / 36 · 0.37 xG

PIT went 1-for-36 from low danger on 0.37 expected goals — 0.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
1 G · 2.12 xG · -1.1
PIT
4 G · 3.71 xG · +0.3
012345

BUF finished -1.1 against expected, PIT +0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
WRIST1/23
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
SNAP0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/17
PIT
WRIST4/25
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/6
DEFLECTED0/3
SNAP0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/17
BUF
PIT
Off the rush
1 G on 23
1.51 xG
2 G on 30
2.65 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.44 xG
0 G on 3
0.32 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-23, PIT 4-for-25. 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
A. Lyon
BUF · 16/19 · .842
started · 40:00 · loss
-1.2
saved above expected
D-
the night
Attempts faced
28
Avg chance faced
6.3%
Stopped vs expected
0.893 vs 0.937
Rebounds allowed
2
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium2/141.3-0.7
Low1/130.3-0.7
Shorthanded1/40.5-0.5
Tips & deflections0/70.6+0.6
The save
19% chance stopped, a slap from 37 ft · P2 12:07
The one to have back
3% chance went in, a wrist from 45 ft · P1 10:27

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 · 8/8 · 1.000
in relief · 18:52
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
Attempts faced
13
Avg chance faced
7.9%
Stopped vs expected
1.000 vs 0.921
Rebounds allowed
1
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.3+0.3
Medium0/70.6+0.6
Low0/50.1+0.1
Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1
The save
32% chance stopped, a backhand from 5 ft · P3 05:03

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. Murashov
PIT · 13/13 · 1.000
started · 30:23
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
Attempts faced
19
Avg chance faced
5.7%
Stopped vs expected
1.000 vs 0.943
Rebounds allowed
2
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium0/70.7+0.7
Low0/110.3+0.3
Shorthanded0/10.1+0.1
Tips & deflections0/10.0+0.0
The save
19% chance stopped, a wrist from 8 ft · P2 08:57

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. Blomqvist
PIT · 10/11 · .909
in relief · 29:30 · win
+0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
Attempts faced
16
Avg chance faced
6.5%
Stopped vs expected
0.938 vs 0.935
Rebounds allowed
1
By dangerG/attxGsaved
Medium1/90.9-0.1
Low0/70.2+0.2
Shorthanded1/60.4-0.6
Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1
The save
14% chance stopped, a slap from 24 ft · P3 01:34
The one to have back
8% chance went in, a wrist from 36 ft · P2 18:32

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: B. Rust (PIT), 16:41 of ice, 1-2, 58% of the expected goals while he was out.

BUF18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
J. RichardR16:021-046A
T. BordeleauC16:570-145B
R. MrtkaD20:280-069B
R. JohnsonD18:420-067B
L. ValenteC14:540-048C
Z. MetsaD21:550-129C
J. DanforthR17:320-043C
R. Fiddler-SchultzC14:190-046C
T. KuntarC14:520-031D
M. PecaC18:010-042D
J. PolinR15:370-038D
J.KulichC19:390-030D
C. ShearyL5:350-04D
T. KozakC17:010-029F
A. McDonoughL11:510-011F
J. RathboneD16:220-021F
V. KomarovD17:330-015F
D. GilbertD20:020-020F
PIT18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
B. RustR16:411-258A+
C. DewarC14:411-166A+
H. LapierreC16:330-179A+
E. SoderblomL15:311-058A
A. HayesR14:501-065A
F. HallanderC14:140-088A
A. KuzmenkoL19:020-158A
K. LetangD20:490-165B
J. BrazeauR14:290-079B
C. PietilaD21:560-066B
B. KindelC6:130-077B
O. PickeringD17:270-057C
T. van RiemsdykD17:210-074C
T. HoweL12:280-071C
D. GustafssonC16:360-058C
R. GravesD22:330-061D
H. BrunickeD16:300-059D
T. BrozC17:480-055D

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, BUF: A. Kriukov, J. Zucker, S. Carrick, M. Geertsen, B. Warren, B. Malenstyn and 58 more. Scratched, PIT: E. Malkin, S. Crosby, E. Karlsson, R. Rakell, R. Segalla, T. Novak and 67 more. Referees Carter Sandlak and Justin Kea; linesmen James Tobias and Mark Shewchyk.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionBUFPIT
Offense
▸Basis

BUF Created 2.12 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.51 xG).

PIT Created 3.71 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.41 xG) and 30 rush shots (2.65 xG).

D+
69
A
94
Defense
▸Basis

BUF Allowed 3.71 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.41 xG) and 30 rush shots (2.65 xG).

PIT Allowed 2.12 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.51 xG).

F
56
B-
81
Transition
▸Basis

BUF Rush shots 23–30, rush xG 1.51–2.65 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

PIT Rush shots 30–23, rush xG 2.65–1.51 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D-
60
A-
90
Special teams
▸Basis

BUF 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.47 PP xG.

PIT 1-for-2 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 0.44 PP xG.

B+
88
A+
100
Goaltending
▸Basis

BUF +0.71 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.

PIT +1.12 goals saved above expected on 24 shots against.

B-
82
B
86
Discipline
▸Basis

BUF Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

PIT Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

B-
80
C-
70
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

BUF Finishing -1.12 goals vs xG plus +0.71 GSAx of save luck = -0.41 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

PIT Finishing +0.29 goals vs xG plus +1.12 GSAx of save luck = +1.41 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C-
72
B
86
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGBUF

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 30 rush shots worth 2.65 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHPIT

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 30 rush shots worth 2.65 xG.

WARNINGPIT

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 1.51 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHPIT

Won on the merits

The Penguins controlled 64% of expected goals (3.71–2.12) and won 4-1 — result matched process.

STRENGTHBUF

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 23 rush shots worth 1.51 xG.

STRENGTHPIT

B. Rust led the way

1G 2A in 16:41 — the game's first star.

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BUF
35 shots
1
Final
79 shots
PIT
44 shots
4
BUF attackPIT attack
BUF PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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
B. Rust
#17 · R · PIT
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 16:41 on ice · +3
C. Dewar
#19 · C · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 14:41 on ice · +2
Z. Metsa
#73 · D · BUF
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:55 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Sep 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:09 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 3.2–3.4 goal margin with Pittsburgh at 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find in October.

Buffalo and Pittsburgh are statistical twins at five-on-five. The Sabres sit at 50.6% expected-goal share with 49.6% Corsi; the Penguins run 50.8% xG% and 50.2% Corsi—functionally identical. Buffalo's PDO of 1.020 suggests they're running hot, a sign that regression is waiting. Pittsburgh's 1.012 sits closer to equilibrium, indicating their underlying play and results are tracking together.

The Penguins' offense moves through Filip Hallander. At 1.28 xG/60, he's generating dangerous volume despite a 0G–3A line—he's finding the right places without the finish yet. Pittsburgh's defensive assignment is straightforward: neutralize Jason Zucker, Buffalo's dangerous winger at 1.07 xG/60 with 14G–14A and 6 high-danger goals. His 15.1% shooting rate is elite execution, not luck. Buffalo has another threat in Josh Doan—1.01 xG/60, 15G–18A, 11.5% shooting. Rickard Rakell carries a similar profile for Pittsburgh: 1.01 xG/60, 13G–13A, 3 high-danger goals, and 12.1% shooting. Buffalo's defensive assignment: shut down Hallander.

Here's where it gets thin. Both teams sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound-goal rate—neither is finishing the hardest chances or capitalizing on second looks. Their scoring depends almost entirely on volume and elite individual execution. Jack Quinn (Buffalo) and Caleb Jones (Pittsburgh) represent each team's defensive weak links, meaning one dangerous chance per team might convert.

The game is decided by whoever suppresses the other team's primary scorer—Zucker or Hallander—into low-danger territory. Until one team solves that puzzle, the coin-flip model is your guide.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 53%
53%
PIT
Model favorite
47%
53%
BUF50PIT

PIT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 3.2–3.4 PIT; 16% 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 →PIT
50.6%50.8%
49.6%50.2%
3.243.31
3.163.20
3.453.54
2.933.15
1.0201.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.012) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
BUF
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
PIT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.020
BUF PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

STRENGTHPIT

Filip Hallander drives the Penguins offense

Filip Hallander: 0G 3A, 1.28 xG/60.

TACTICALPIT

Shutdown Assignment: Penguins

Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Zucker (14G, 1.07 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Zucker (14G, 1.07 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

TACTICALBUF

Shutdown Assignment: Sabres

Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Hallander (0G, 1.28 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Hallander (0G, 1.28 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

WARNINGBUF

Exploitable minutes: Jack Quinn

Jack Quinn is on ice for 2.96 xGA/60 and 54 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Jack Quinn's shifts with the top line.

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
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
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