Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · PIT at BUF · Preseason

Penguins run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Sep 26

PITPittsburgh Penguins3 BUFBuffalo Sabres1

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 3 · BUF 1

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 27, 12:07 AMxG: 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

Pittsburgh beat Buffalo 3-1. The Penguins controlled the game from the opening shift, building on early goals while Buffalo couldn't find an answer.

The underlying numbers backed it up. Pittsburgh generated 5.11 expected goals to Buffalo's 2.79 — a 65-35 advantage. Both teams recorded 24 shot attempts, so the Penguins' superiority came from converting volume into danger. Pittsburgh created 9 high-danger chances; Buffalo, 2.

A. Silovs saved 1.79 goals above what his workload should have allowed, ensuring Pittsburgh's offensive dominance reached the scoreboard. U. Luukkonen and C. Ellis made their saves, but faced lower-quality looks.

The Penguins' every touch was deadlier: 0.100 expected goals per shot to Buffalo's 0.055.

S. Crosby's wrist shot from 28 feet in the first broke the ice. V. Koivunen's rebound goal made it 2-0 before Buffalo found its footing. R. McLeod's power-play goal in the third cut it close, but N. Robertson's backhander into an empty net sealed the outcome.

Pittsburgh's transition game was the difference. The Penguins generated 26 rush shots worth 3.71 expected goals and converted two. Buffalo's rush defense broke down every period.

Both teams underperformed their expected goals. Pittsburgh shot 2.11 worse than it should have; Buffalo, 1.79 worse. Superior numbers decided the game.

The goals

PIT 1–0, 09:00 of the first. S. Crosby, wrist shot from 28 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past U. Luukkonen. Assists: T. Novak, D. Carlile. Win probability moved 16 points.
PIT 2–0, 10:56 of the first. V. Koivunen, backhander from 6 feet, an 11% chance by the model (a rebound), past U. Luukkonen. Assists: H. Lapierre, B. Rust. 2 seconds after a PIT blocked shot by C. Timmins. Win probability moved 14 points.
BUF 2–1, 11:30 of the third on the power play. R. McLeod, wrist shot from 36 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Assists: O. Power, N. Ostlund. Win probability moved 14 points.
PIT 3–1, 18:55 of the third into an empty net. N. Robertson, backhander from 12 feet, a 100% chance by the model (off the rush). Assists: R. Rakell, T. van Riemsdyk. 9 seconds after a PIT takeaway by T. van Riemsdyk.

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 26

PIT

BUF

Penguins run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.1 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PIT

5.11

BUF

2.79

65% of the chances35%

The board read PIT 3, BUF 1. The chances read PIT 5.1, BUF 2.8.

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

Luck check

PIT

−2.1

goals above expected

PIT5.11 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF2.79 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Sabres left 1.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

The swing

+16

win-probability points

46% → 62% for PIT

BUF 100%the game, start to finish

PIT 100%P1 · P2 · P3

PITP1 09:00

S. Crosby makes it 1–0.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games

Every goal, in order

P1 09:00PITS. Crosby10%1–0
P1 10:56PITV. Koivunen11%2–0
P3 11:30BUFR. McLeodPP11%2–1
P3 18:55PITN. RobertsonEN100%3–1

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

Where the shots came from

PIT

40 shots

Final

73 shots

BUF

33 shots

PIT BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PITBUF

1 / 9

2.89 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.44 xG

2 / 19

1.93 xG

Medium

1 / 19

2.05 xG

0 / 23

0.28 xG

Low

0 / 30

0.30 xG

High-danger looks: PIT 1 of 9, BUF 0 of 2.

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

In the net

A. Silovs

+1.8

PIT · 23/24 · 59:55

Best save · a 26% chance, snap from 11 ft · P3 13:53

B+

C. Ellis

+1.3

BUF · 6/6 · 15:37 · in relief

Best save · a 24% chance, snap from 22 ft · P3 08:35

+1 more on the full breakdown

Best skater on the ice

A+

PIT

H. Lapierre

C · impact 2.04

18:48

Ice time

0–1

G – A

0.46

Own xG

83%

xG share

Impact · top 4

H. Lapierre2.0A+

V. Koivunen1.6A+

T. van Riemsdyk1.4A+

B. Rust0.9A

Report card

PITBUF

OffenseA+B-

DefenseC-F

TransitionA-D-

Special teamsDB+

GoaltendingAA+

DisciplineDB

LuckC-B

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

Why it went the way it went

Why PIT won

01Dangerous off the rush
02Won on the merits
03A. Silovs tilted the crease

Why BUF lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Cold finishing night
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 9–11

09:00PITS. Crosby(T. Novak, D. Carlile)1–0
Wrist shot from 28 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past U. Luukkonen. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: E. Malkin, S. Crosby, K. Letang, E. Karlsson, T. Novak · against T. Thompson, R. Dahlin, P. Krebs, L. Crevier, J. Doan
10:56PITV. Koivunen(H. Lapierre, B. Rust)2–0
Backhander from 6 feet, an 11% chance (a rebound), past U. Luukkonen. 2s after a PIT block. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: K. Letang, B. Rust, T. van Riemsdyk, H. Lapierre, V. Koivunen · against J. Norris, R. McLeod, R. Dahlin, L. Crevier, K. Helenius

2ndshots 7–9no goals

3rdshots 8–4

11:30BUFR. McLeodpower play(O. Power, N. Ostlund)2–1
Wrist shot from 36 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: S. Carrick, M. Grzelcyk, B. Malenstyn, C. Timmins, C. Ellis, T. Kozak · against S. Crosby, R. Rakell, S. Girard, K. Korczak, V. Koivunen
18:55PITN. Robertsonempty net(R. Rakell, T. van Riemsdyk)3–1
Backhander from 12 feet, a 100% chance, a near-certain one (off the rush). 9s after a PIT takeaway by T. van Riemsdyk.On the ice: S. Girard, K. Korczak, H. Lapierre, T. Broz, R. McGroarty · against M. Grzelcyk, R. McLeod, P. Krebs, C. Ellis, Z. Metsa, K. Helenius

score reads PIT–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.11

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.039

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.11Expected goals2.79

PIT 65% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal24

9High-danger chances2

51All attempts (Corsi)51

Adjusted for score: PIT 44% · BUF 56%

Faceoffs · BUF won70%off67%neu62%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PIT1 / 9 · 2.89 xG

BUF0 / 2 · 0.44 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PIT2 / 19 · 1.93 xG

BUF1 / 19 · 2.05 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PIT0 / 23 · 0.28 xG

BUF0 / 30 · 0.30 xG

PIT went 1-for-9 from high danger on 2.89 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PIT

3 G · 5.11 xG · -2.1

BUF

1 G · 2.79 xG · -1.8

0123456

PIT finished -2.1 against expected, BUF -1.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PIT

SNAP0/17

WRIST1/7

TIP IN0/7

BACKHAND2/5

SLAP0/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/11

BUF

SNAP0/13

WRIST1/11

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/18

PIT

BUF

Off the rush

2 G on 26

3.71 xG

1 G on 23

2.39 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.64 xG

0 G on 2

0.16 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 0-for-17, BUF 0-for-13. 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. Silovs

PIT · 23/24 · .958

started · 59:55 · win

+1.8

saved above expected

the night

Attempts faced: 33
Avg chance faced: 8.5%
Stopped vs expected: 0.970 vs 0.915
Rebounds allowed: 2

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium1/192.0+1.1

Low0/120.3+0.3

Shorthanded1/50.6-0.4

Tips & deflections0/30.3+0.3

The save

26% chance stopped, a snap from 11 ft · P3 13:53

The one to have back

11% chance went in, a wrist from 36 ft · P3 11:30

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 · 15/17 · .882

started · 43:47 · loss

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

Attempts faced: 27
Avg chance faced: 9.3%
Stopped vs expected: 0.926 vs 0.907
Rebounds allowed: 2 · 1 scored on

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium2/151.4-0.6

Low0/80.2+0.2

Shorthanded0/20.4+0.4

Tips & deflections0/70.5+0.5

The save

30% chance stopped, a snap from 21 ft · P1 13:17

The one to have back

10% chance went in, a wrist from 28 ft · P1 09:00

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 · 6/6 · 1.000

in relief · 15:37

+1.3

saved above expected

B+

the night

Attempts faced: 11
Avg chance faced: 11.5%
Stopped vs expected: 1.000 vs 0.885
Rebounds allowed: 2

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium0/40.5+0.5

Low0/40.1+0.1

The save

24% chance stopped, a snap from 22 ft · P3 08:35

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: H. Lapierre (PIT), 18:48 of ice, 0-1, 83% of the expected goals while he was out.

PIT18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
H. LapierreC	18:48	0-1	3	0.46	83	0/0	2.04	6.50	A+
V. KoivunenR	15:38	1-0	3	0.77	71	0/0	1.61	6.19	A+
T. van RiemsdykD	18:44	0-1	1	0.04	85	0/0	1.39	4.44	A+
B. RustR	8:04	0-1	1	0.10	46	1/0	0.94	6.96	A
N. RobertsonL	15:34	1-0	1	1.00	46	0/0	1.21	4.66	A
T. NovakC	16:29	0-1	0	0.11	75	0/0	1.14	4.15	A
S. CrosbyC	16:03	1-0	2	0.68	52	0/0	1.13	4.21	A
E. MalkinC	17:45	0-0	2	0.50	90	0/1	1.12	3.79	A
E. ChinakhovR	16:42	0-0	4	0.55	92	0/1	1.06	3.83	B
R. McGroartyR	11:20	0-0	3	0.32	66	0/0	0.80	4.22	B
R. RakellR	14:59	0-1	2	0.10	56	0/1	0.79	3.17	B
D. CarlileD	22:24	0-1	1	0.14	57	0/0	0.90	2.40	B
K. LetangD	17:05	0-0	0	0.00	88	0/0	0.82	2.88	B
T. BrozC	10:07	0-0	0	0.00	68	0/0	0.45	2.67	C
S. GirardD	20:44	0-0	1	0.07	55	0/0	0.36	1.04	C
K. KorczakD	20:45	0-0	0	0.01	56	0/0	0.24	0.70	C
E. KarlssonD	18:46	0-0	0	0.03	53	0/0	0.07	0.23	C
F. HallanderC	14:17	0-0	0	0.23	30	0/0	-0.44	-1.84	F

BUF18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
O. PowerD	22:11	0-1	1	0.14	45	0/0	0.68	1.83	B
R. McLeodC	16:18	1-0	2	0.22	31	1/0	0.59	2.18	B
N. OstlundC	16:10	0-1	0	0.06	43	0/0	0.41	1.52	C
J. QuinnR	16:57	0-0	3	0.39	46	0/0	0.27	0.94	C
C. TimminsD	16:37	0-0	3	0.07	46	0/0	0.22	0.80	C
J. NorrisC	14:38	0-0	1	0.19	55	0/1	0.15	0.60	C
T. KozakC	10:39	0-0	0	0.00	51	0/0	0.06	0.31	D
J. DoanR	17:00	0-0	1	0.22	45	0/0	0.05	0.16	D
S. CarrickC	13:07	0-0	1	0.08	37	0/0	0.00	0.02	D
K. HeleniusC	14:34	0-0	2	0.28	35	0/0	-0.14	-0.60	D
B. MalenstynL	12:08	0-0	0	0.00	36	0/0	-0.14	-0.67	D
L. CrevierD	16:54	0-0	4	0.23	25	0/0	-0.17	-0.59	D
M. GrzelcykD	16:48	0-0	1	0.03	36	0/0	-0.24	-0.84	D
T. ThompsonC	19:23	0-0	1	0.14	22	1/0	-0.28	-0.87	D
P. KrebsC	15:57	0-0	3	0.41	27	0/0	-0.31	-1.15	F
R. DahlinD	24:44	0-0	1	0.29	24	1/0	-0.38	-0.92	F
Z. BensonL	17:43	0-0	0	0.00	31	0/0	-0.41	-1.37	F
Z. MetsaD	16:48	0-0	0	0.03	26	0/0	-0.54	-1.92	F

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, PIT: R. Segalla, R. Graves, C. Jones, J. Masonius, J. Brazeau, C. Delia and 54 more. Scratched, BUF: A. Kriukov, J. Zucker, M. Peca, M. Geertsen, C. Sheary, B. Warren and 51 more. Referees Hayden Verbeek and Peter MacDougall; linesmen Andrew Smith and Tommy Hughes.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionPITBUF

Offense

▸Basis

PIT Created 5.11 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 9 high-danger shots (2.89 xG) and 26 rush shots (3.71 xG).

BUF Created 2.79 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.44 xG) and 23 rush shots (2.39 xG).

A+

100

B-

Defense

▸Basis

PIT Allowed 2.79 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.44 xG) and 23 rush shots (2.39 xG).

BUF Allowed 5.11 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 9 high-danger shots (2.89 xG) and 26 rush shots (3.71 xG).

C-

Transition

▸Basis

PIT Rush shots 26–23, rush xG 3.71–2.39 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

BUF Rush shots 23–26, rush xG 2.39–3.71 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

A-

D-

Special teams

▸Basis

PIT 0-for-1 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.41 PP xG.

BUF 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.58 PP xG.

B+

Goaltending

▸Basis

PIT +1.79 goals saved above expected on 24 shots against.

BUF +3.11 goals saved above expected on 23 shots against.

A+

100

Discipline

▸Basis

PIT Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 1 for 2 on the other side.

BUF Took 1 penalties for 2 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

PIT Finishing -2.11 goals vs xG plus +1.79 GSAx of save luck = -0.32 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

BUF Finishing -1.79 goals vs xG plus +3.11 GSAx of save luck = +1.32 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C-

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

What the model flagged

WARNINGBUF

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 26 rush shots worth 3.71 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 26 rush shots worth 3.71 xG.

WARNINGPIT

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 2.39 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHBUF

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 23 rush shots worth 2.39 xG.

LUCKPIT

Cold finishing night

Scored 3 on 5.11 xG — -2.11 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

LUCKBUF

Cold finishing night

Scored 1 on 2.79 xG — -1.79 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PIT

40 shots

Final

73 shots

BUF

33 shots

PIT BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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

D. Carlile

#72 · D · PIT

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:24 on ice · +2

O. Power

#25 · D · BUF

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:11 on ice · -1

H. Lapierre

#22 · C · PIT

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:48 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Sep 26

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft

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 26, 1:38 PMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model projects a PIT 3.2 - 3.4 BUF game with the Sabres at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Keys to the game

Alex Lyon has been a season-long wall. Alex Lyon: +11.2 GSAx over 36 games (0.907 SV%).
Filip Hallander drives the Penguins offense. Filip Hallander: 0G 3A, 1.12 xG/60, 1 high-danger goals.
Exploitable minutes: Filip Hallander. Filip Hallander is on ice for 2.99 xGA/60 and 11 high-danger shots against this season.

Season 5v5 Numbers

Metric	PIT	BUF
xG%	50.8%	50.6%
Corsi%	50.2%	49.6%
PDO	1.012	1.020

Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

Regression Watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Goaltending Matchup

Goalie matchup: S. Murashov (-0.6 GSAx in 5 GP, 89.7% SV) vs C. Ellis (-0.9 GSAx in 16 GP, 90.3% SV).

Players to Watch

PIT

Filip Hallander — 1.12 xG/60, 0G 3A, 1 HD goals
Avery Hayes — 0.96 xG/60, 5G 0A, 3 HD goals, 20.0% shooting

Key Matchups

PIT

PIT scores 41% of goals from HD — collapse and protect the slot
Attack when Filip Hallander (C) is on ice — 2.99 xGA/60

BUF

BUF scores 53% of goals from HD — collapse and protect the slot
Their goalie (Colten Ellis) leaks HD — 78.7% HD SV. Get to the slot.

Tactical Notes

PIT: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
PIT defensive weak link: Filip Hallander
BUF: 1% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
BUF defensive weak link: Noah Ostlund

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 52%

52%

BUF

Model favorite

48%

52%

PIT50BUF

BUF by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 3.2–3.4 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

PIT← edge

edge →BUF

50.8%50.6%

50.2%49.6%

3.313.24

3.203.16

3.543.45

3.152.93

1.0121.020

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 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

PIT

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

BUF

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

STRENGTHBUF

Alex Lyon has been a season-long wall

Alex Lyon: +11.2 GSAx over 36 games (0.907 SV%).

STRENGTHPIT

Filip Hallander drives the Penguins offense

Filip Hallander: 0G 3A, 1.12 xG/60, 1 high-danger goals.

WARNINGPIT

Exploitable minutes: Filip Hallander

Filip Hallander is on ice for 2.99 xGA/60 and 11 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Filip Hallander's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGBUF

Exploitable minutes: Noah Ostlund

Noah Ostlund is on ice for 2.10 xGA/60 and 47 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Noah Ostlund's shifts with the top line.

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

Goalie matchup: S. Murashov (-0.6 GSAx in 5 GP, 89.7% SV) vs C. Ellis (-0.9 GSAx in 16 GP, 90.3% SV).
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PIT

preseason · vs CBJ · Thu, Sep 24

Expected in goal

S. Murashov

1 day rest.813 last start59:00 played

Backup Stuart Skinner · +7.5 GSAx this season

Forwards · 12

R. McGroarty14:45
F. Hallander17:42
D. Gustafsson12:45
C. Dewar17:34
B. Zonnon12:39
E. Soderblom17:47
T. Broz15:46
T. Howe12:57
V. Koivunen15:31
M. Ilyin13:13
A. Calvert12:29
A. Hayes15:44

Defence · 6

J. Livanavage21:54
I. Solovyov19:44
R. Graves20:47
O. Pickering17:53
H. Brunicke18:18
C. Jones21:32

BUF

preseason · vs DET · Thu, Sep 24

Expected in goal

C. Ellis

1 day rest.889 last start18:00 played

A. Lyon started last game and was relieved by C. Ellis (41:59 of it).

Backup Alex Lyon · +11.2 GSAx this season

Forwards · 12

M. Peca17:47
J. Danforth17:40
J.Kulich10:28
A. McDonough10:53
L. Valente11:21
J. Polin10:54
T. Kozak16:58
T. Kuntar10:55
J. Richard14:19
T. Bordeleau15:40
N. Ostlund23:56
K. Helenius24:35

Defence · 6

R. Johnson15:01
D. Gilbert21:55
R. Mrtka14:22
G. McCarthy17:34
Z. Metsa23:17
V. Komarov16:05

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

1.12 xG/60 · 1 HD · 0.0% sh

Avery Hayes5G 0A

0.96 xG/60 · 3 HD · 20.0% sh

BUF

Jiri Kulich2G 2A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page