Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · CBJ at BUF · Preseason

Sabres run the Blue Jackets off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Sep 22

CBJColumbus Blue Jackets1 BUFBuffalo Sabres5

The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 1 · BUF 5

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 22, 10:02 PMxG: 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

The Sabres rolled the Blue Jackets 5-1. J. Norris opened scoring at 10:12 in the second period. Later in the period, N. Ostlund scored twice (11:54, 12:22). The result was decided. C. Timmins (3:53, P3) and T. Thompson (14:32, P3) added cushion. C. Ceulemans's snap shot from the top of the circles (16:19, P3) was Columbus's only goal.

What it actually means is that the underlying numbers confirm this wasn't an outlier. Buffalo generated far more dangerous chances: they held 69% of expected goals. They scored three times on 32 rush attempts—lethal efficiency when space opens up. Columbus mustered just 1.87 expected goals and went 0-for-5 on the power play despite 0.54 expected goals on those chances.

U. Luukkonen stopped all 13 shots and saved 0.97 goals above expected. Each stop was decisive. The other side split duty: C. Talbot made 23 saves on 26 shots (0.885 save percentage), then E. Gardner came in, stopped 7 of 9, and saved 2.1 above expected—solid work in a rout.

The offensive story is straightforward: Buffalo generated 4.10 expected goals (well above the ~2.70 league average) and scored five. Columbus generated 1.87 (well below average) and scored once. The power play was neutral—both teams went 0-for, the Sabres 0-for-3, Columbus 0-for-5.

The margin is real. Buffalo was better at generating chances off the rush, better at finishing when space opened, and better in net.

O. Power (BUF) — 3A
T. Thompson (BUF) — 1G, 1A
Z. Benson (BUF) — 2A

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Preseason · Sep 22

CBJ

BUF

Sabres run the Blue Jackets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.9 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CBJ

1.87

BUF

4.10

31% of the chances69%

The board read CBJ 1, BUF 5. The chances read CBJ 1.9, BUF 4.1.

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

Luck check

BUF

+0.9

goals above expected

BUF4.10 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

CBJ1.87 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

P2 10:12BUFJ. Norris0–1
P2 11:54BUFN. Ostlund0–2
P2 12:22BUFN. Ostlund0–3
P3 03:53BUFC. Timmins0–4
P3 14:32BUFT. Thompson0–5
P3 16:19CBJC. Ceulemans1–5

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

Where the shots came from

CBJ

34 shots

Final

81 shots

BUF

47 shots

CBJ BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CBJBUF

0 / 1

0.19 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.65 xG

0 / 9

0.94 xG

Medium

5 / 27

3.08 xG

1 / 38

0.75 xG

Low

0 / 37

0.38 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 0 of 1, BUF 0 of 3.

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

In the net

E. Gardner

+2.1

CBJ · 7/9

U. Luukkonen

+1.9

BUF · 13/13

+2 more on the full breakdown

Report card

CBJBUF

OffenseDA

DefenseFB

TransitionFA

Special teamsFF

GoaltendingDB

DisciplineBD

LuckD-B+

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

Why it went the way it went

Why BUF won

01Dangerous off the rush
02Won on the merits
03U. Luukkonen tilted the crease

Why CBJ lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Power play came up empty
03PDO ran cold

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres run the Blue Jackets 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 / 10 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 6–11no goals

2ndshots 7–15

10:12BUFJ. Norris(O. Power, K. Helenius)0–1
11:54BUFN. Ostlund(Z. Benson, O. Power)0–2
12:22BUFN. Ostlund(Z. Benson)0–3

3rdshots 12–9

03:53BUFC. Timmins(T. Thompson, J. Quinn)0–4
14:32BUFT. Thompson(J. Doan, O. Power)0–5
16:19CBJC. Ceulemans(D. Voronkov, B. Buckberger)1–5

score reads CBJ–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.10

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.054

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

58.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.87Expected goals4.10

BUF 69% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal35

1High-danger chances3

48All attempts (Corsi)67

Adjusted for score: CBJ 45% · BUF 55%

Faceoffs · BUF won69%off50%neu63%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CBJ0 / 1 · 0.19 xG

BUF0 / 3 · 0.65 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CBJ0 / 9 · 0.94 xG

BUF5 / 27 · 3.08 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CBJ1 / 38 · 0.75 xG

BUF0 / 37 · 0.38 xG

BUF went 5-for-27 from medium danger on 3.08 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CBJ

1 G · 1.87 xG · -0.9

BUF

5 G · 4.10 xG · +0.9

0123456

CBJ finished -0.9 against expected, BUF +0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CBJ

WRIST0/22

SNAP1/7

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/0

TIP IN0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/14

BUF

WRIST0/11

SNAP1/21

SLAP2/5

BACKHAND2/7

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/20

CBJ

BUF

Off the rush

1 G on 24

1.35 xG

3 G on 32

2.80 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.36 xG

1 G on 2

0.34 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 0-for-22, BUF 0-for-11. 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

C. Talbot

CBJ · 23/26 · .885

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium5/273.1-1.9

Low0/370.4+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

E. Gardner

CBJ · 7/9 · .778

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium5/273.1-1.9

Low0/370.4+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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 13/13 · 1.000

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium0/90.9+0.9

Low1/380.8-0.3

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 · 11/12 · .917

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium0/90.9+0.9

Low1/380.8-0.3

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

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionCBJBUF

Offense

▸Basis

CBJ Created 1.87 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 24 rush shots (1.35 xG).

BUF Created 4.10 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.65 xG) and 32 rush shots (2.80 xG).

Defense

▸Basis

CBJ Allowed 4.10 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.65 xG) and 32 rush shots (2.80 xG).

BUF Allowed 1.87 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 24 rush shots (1.35 xG).

Transition

▸Basis

CBJ Rush shots 24–32, rush xG 1.35–2.80 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

BUF Rush shots 32–24, rush xG 2.80–1.35 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

Special teams

▸Basis

CBJ 0-for-5 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.54 PP xG.

BUF 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.68 PP xG.

Goaltending

▸Basis

CBJ -0.90 goals saved above expected on 35 shots against.

BUF +0.87 goals saved above expected on 25 shots against.

Discipline

▸Basis

CBJ Took 8 penalties for 19 PIM vs 10 for 23 on the other side.

BUF Took 10 penalties for 23 PIM vs 8 for 19 on the other side.

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

CBJ Finishing -0.87 goals vs xG plus -0.90 GSAx of save luck = -1.77 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

BUF Finishing +0.90 goals vs xG plus +0.87 GSAx of save luck = +1.77 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

D-

B+

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

What the model flagged

WARNINGCBJ

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 32 rush shots worth 2.80 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 32 rush shots worth 2.80 xG.

STRENGTHBUF

Won on the merits

The Sabres controlled 69% of expected goals (4.10–1.87) and won 5-1 — result matched process.

WARNINGBUF

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 24 rush shots worth 1.35 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

WARNINGBUF

Paraded to the penalty box

Took 10 penalties for 23 minutes (opponent: 8 for 19).

Cut the stick infractions — the penalty differential is a controllable.

STRENGTHCBJ

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 24 rush shots worth 1.35 xG.

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CBJ

34 shots

Final

81 shots

BUF

47 shots

CBJ BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

O. Power

#25 · D · BUF

0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 25:12 on ice · +4

T. Thompson

#72 · C · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 17:00 on ice · +2

Z. Benson

#6 · L · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:56 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Sep 22

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 21, 8:56 PMEdited 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 3.1–3.4 game with the Sabres favored at 53% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The underlying play is nearly indistinguishable: CBJ's 51.1% Corsi barely edges Buffalo's 49.6%, and the Sabres' 50.6% xG slightly tops Columbus's 50.0%—a statistical wash suggesting neither team has built a meaningful edge.

The Sabres' 1.020 PDO is the tell. That surplus is unsustainable—expected-goals models predict regression, and the Sabres' luck is likely running out. This argues against the odds.

The game hinges on two forwards. Jason Zucker (14G 14A, 1.07 xG/60, 6 HD goals, 15.1% shooting) drives Buffalo's offense; he's shooting well above his expected rate, a sign of either genuine skill or luck about to revert. Boone Jenner (11G 21A, 0.98 xG/60, 2 HD goals, 9.6% shooting) is Columbus's primary threat, with a shot rate sitting below expectation—typical of a player due. The Sabres' shutdown task is Jenner; the Blue Jackets' is Zucker.

Two secondary scorers occupy similar terrain. Mathieu Olivier (12G 9A, 0.89 xG/60, 1 HD goal, 13.3% shooting) has thrived on a shooting rate well above his expected output, the calling card of streaky depth scoring that burns out. Josh Doan (15G 18A, 1.01 xG/60, 2 HD goals, 11.5% shooting) presents the same case: overperformance that works only until it collapses.

Both teams are generating 0% of their goals from high-danger chances and rebounds—a data quirk in small samples. Defensively, Conor Garland is a liability for Columbus; Jack Quinn for Buffalo.

The crux: Buffalo's hot run and surplus PDO mask underlying mediocrity. Columbus has the structural edge in a league that punishes luck. This is as close to pick 'em as the math says it is.

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

BUF 53%

53%

BUF

Model favorite

47%

53%

CBJ50BUF

BUF by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CBJ 3.1–3.4 BUF; 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

CBJ← edge

edge →BUF

50.0%50.6%

51.1%49.6%

3.143.24

3.143.16

3.003.45

3.062.93

1.0031.020

BUF 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

TACTICALBUF

Shutdown Assignment: Sabres

Key matchup: Neutralize Boone Jenner (11G, 0.98 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

TACTICALCBJ

Shutdown Assignment: Blue Jackets

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

WARNINGCBJ

Exploitable minutes: Conor Garland

Conor Garland is on ice for 2.93 xGA/60 and 40 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Conor Garland's shifts with the top line.

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

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

Back to the front page