Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Sat, Oct 3 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at PIT

Penguins edge the Canadiens in overtime

Final / OTSat, Oct 3
MTLMontreal Canadiens5PITPittsburgh Penguins6
The verdict · earned

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

MTL 5 · PIT 6
◆ By the ModelOct 3, 10:11 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

T. Novak's wrist shot from the high slot at 01:33 of overtime lifted Pittsburgh past Montreal 6-5, concluding a game where both goalies surrendered more goals than their workload suggested they should have allowed.

The underlying numbers called this close: Pittsburgh held 3.75 expected goals against Montreal's 3.20, and controlled 55% of shot attempts (30–25). All four high-danger chances fell to the Penguins. Yet J. Dobes allowed six goals on 30 shots (0.800 save percentage, −2.25 versus expected), while A. Silovs conceded five on 25 (0.800 save percentage, −1.80 versus expected)—each giving up roughly two more goals than the xG model predicted for their workload.

Pittsburgh built the lead on the rush, converting four of 23 chances, including Novak's winner. E. Malkin (1G, 2A) orchestrated that attack. Montreal answered with five rush goals on 32 chances, clawing back late: C. Caufield scored twice, and L. Hutson (3A) set up N. Suzuki (1G, 3A) for the equalizer in the third period.

The power plays revealed the gap. Pittsburgh buried two on 14 shots (0.86 expected goals), a dominant advantage. Montreal scored twice on fewer attempts—the kind of conversion that happens when rhythm breaks.

Pittsburgh overperformed their expected goals by 2.25; Montreal by 1.80. When both teams beat their odds equally, the game hinges on who scores last.

The goals

  • MTL 1–0, 03:49 of the first. C. Caufield, wrist shot from 29 feet, a 5% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Assists: N. Suzuki, L. Hutson. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • PIT 1–1, 14:07 of the first on the power play. E. Malkin, backhander from 8 feet, a 14% chance by the model (a rebound), past J. Dobes. Assists: K. Letang, H. Lapierre. 2 seconds after a PIT blocked shot by A. Carrier. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • PIT 1–2, 00:32 of the second. D. Carlile, wrist shot from 38 feet, a 6% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Assists: R. Rakell, E. Karlsson. Win probability moved 18 points.
  • PIT 1–3, 07:59 of the second. S. Girard, wrist shot from 8 feet, a 20% chance by the model, past J. Dobes. Assists: S. Crosby, K. Korczak. 5 seconds after a PIT shot by S. Crosby. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • PIT 1–4, 14:01 of the second. T. Novak, wrist shot from 17 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Assists: E. Chinakhov, E. Malkin. 7 seconds after a MTL blocked shot by E. Chinakhov. Win probability moved 7 points.
  • PIT 1–5, 15:32 of the second on the power play. B. Kindel, tip-in from 19 feet, a 6% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Assists: E. Karlsson, T. Novak. 10 seconds after a PIT blocked shot by A. Newhook.
  • MTL 2–5, 18:46 of the second. N. Suzuki, backhander from 11 feet, a 5% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Assists: L. Hutson, N. Dobson.
  • MTL 3–5, 03:31 of the third. C. Caufield, wrist shot from 29 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Assists: C. Kreider.
  • MTL 4–5, 18:52 of the third on the power play. C. Kreider, wrist shot from 15 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Assists: N. Suzuki, I. Demidov.
  • MTL 5–5, 19:16 of the third on the power play. I. Demidov, snap shot from 10 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Assists: N. Suzuki, L. Hutson. 7 seconds after a MTL faceoff win by P. Danault. Win probability moved 45 points.
  • PIT 5–6, 01:33 of overtime. T. Novak, wrist shot from 21 feet, a 12% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Assists: E. Malkin, K. Letang. Win probability moved 50 points.

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 · OT · Oct 3
MTL
5
PIT
6

Penguins edge the Canadiens in overtime

Chances 3.2 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.20
PIT
3.75
46% of the chances54%

The board read MTL 5, PIT 6. The chances read MTL 3.2, PIT 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+2.3
goals above expected
PIT3.75 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL3.20 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins scored 2.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+50
win-probability points
50% → 100% for PIT
PIT 100%the game, start to finish
MTL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
PITOT 01:33

T. Novak makes it 5–6.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:49MTLC. Caufield5%1–0
  2. P1 14:07PITE. MalkinPP14%1–1
  3. P2 00:32PITD. Carlile6%1–2
  4. P2 07:59PITS. Girard20%1–3
  5. P2 14:01PITT. Novak14%1–4
  6. P2 15:32PITB. KindelPP6%1–5
  7. P2 18:46MTLN. Suzuki5%2–5
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
46 shots
5
Final
86 shots
PIT
40 shots
6
MTL attackPIT attack
MTL PIT Goal
46
shots · 5 in
40
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLPIT
0 / 0
0.00 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.42 xG
3 / 26
2.85 xG
Medium
5 / 21
2.01 xG
2 / 43
0.35 xG
Low
0 / 27
0.32 xG

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

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
F
A. Silovs
−1.8
PIT · 20/25 · 61:33
Best save · a 17% chance, snap from 26 ft · P2 03:16
F
J. Dobes
−3.1
MTL · 24/30 · 59:04
Best save · a 22% chance, wrist from 19 ft · P1 17:29
Best skater on the ice
A+
MTL
N. Suzuki
C · impact 3.65
22:43
Ice time
1–3
G – A
0.75
Own xG
66%
xG share
Impact · top 4
N. Suzuki3.7A+
T. Novak2.7A+
E. Malkin2.2A+
L. Hutson2.2A
Report card
MTLPIT
OffenseBA-
DefenseFD
TransitionA-D-
Special teamsFA+
GoaltendingFF
DisciplineDB
LuckC-C+
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. 02Power play cashed in
  3. 03Crashed the crease
Why MTL lost
  1. 01J. Dobes couldn't make the stop
  2. 02Rush defense leaked all night
  3. 03Ran hot in front of the net
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins edge the Canadiens in overtime

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 8–9
  1. 03:49MTLC. Caufield(N. Suzuki, L. Hutson)1–0

    Wrist shot from 29 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: C. Kreider, N. Suzuki, C. Caufield, J. Struble, A. Xhekaj · against E. Karlsson, F. Hallander, C. Dewar, B. Lizotte, D. Carlile

  2. 14:07PITE. Malkinpower play(K. Letang, H. Lapierre)1–1

    Backhander from 8 feet, a 14% chance (a rebound), past J. Dobes. 2s after a PIT block. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: S. Girard, F. Hallander, C. Dewar, B. Lizotte, K. Korczak · against P. Danault, A. Texier, K. Dach, A. Xhekaj, L. Hutson

2ndshots 7–15
  1. 00:32PITD. Carlile(R. Rakell, E. Karlsson)1–2

    Wrist shot from 38 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Win probability moved 18 points.On the ice: E. Malkin, T. Novak, S. Girard, K. Korczak, E. Chinakhov · against A. Carrier, A. Newhook, L. Hutson, J. Slafkovský, I. Demidov

  2. 07:59PITS. Girard(S. Crosby, K. Korczak)1–3

    Wrist shot from 8 feet, a 20% chance, past J. Dobes. 5s after a PIT shot by S. Crosby. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: K. Letang, T. van Riemsdyk, H. Lapierre, A. Kuzmenko, B. Kindel · against C. Kreider, M. Matheson, N. Suzuki, N. Dobson, C. Caufield

  3. 14:01PITT. Novak(E. Chinakhov, E. Malkin)1–4

    Wrist shot from 17 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Dobes. 7s after a MTL block. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: S. Crosby, R. Rakell, S. Girard, K. Korczak, N. Robertson · against A. Newhook, A. Xhekaj, L. Hutson, J. Slafkovský, I. Demidov

  4. 15:32PITB. Kindelpower play(E. Karlsson, T. Novak)1–5

    Tip-in from 19 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Dobes. 10s after a PIT block.On the ice: E. Malkin, S. Girard, K. Korczak, H. Lapierre, E. Chinakhov · against C. Kreider, N. Suzuki, C. Caufield, J. Struble, L. Hutson

  5. 18:46MTLN. Suzuki(L. Hutson, N. Dobson)2–5

    Backhander from 11 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Silovs.On the ice: M. Matheson, N. Suzuki, C. Caufield, J. Struble · against K. Letang, C. Dewar, B. Lizotte, D. Carlile

3rdshots 10–5
  1. 03:31MTLC. Caufield(C. Kreider)3–5

    Wrist shot from 29 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past A. Silovs.On the ice: J. Anderson, J. Evans, A. Texier, A. Xhekaj, L. Hutson · against S. Crosby, K. Letang, R. Rakell, T. van Riemsdyk, N. Robertson

  2. 18:52MTLC. Kreiderpower play(N. Suzuki, I. Demidov)4–5

    Wrist shot from 15 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past A. Silovs.

  3. 19:16MTLI. Demidovpower play(N. Suzuki, L. Hutson)5–5

    Snap shot from 10 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past A. Silovs. 7s after a MTL faceoff win by P. Danault. Win probability moved 45 points.

OTshots 0–1
  1. 01:33PITT. Novak(E. Malkin, K. Letang)5–6

    Wrist shot from 21 feet, a 12% chance (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Win probability moved 50 points.

score reads MTL–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.75
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.043
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.20Expected goals3.75
PIT 54% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal30
0High-danger chances4
69All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: MTL 61% · PIT 39%
Faceoffs · PIT won50%off42%neu39%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
PIT1 / 4 · 1.42 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL3 / 26 · 2.85 xG
PIT5 / 21 · 2.01 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL2 / 43 · 0.35 xG
PIT0 / 27 · 0.32 xG

PIT went 5-for-21 from medium danger on 2.01 expected goals — 3.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
5 G · 3.20 xG · +1.8
PIT
6 G · 3.75 xG · +2.3
01234567

MTL finished +1.8 against expected, PIT +2.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST3/30
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/5
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND1/1
OTHER0/23
PIT
WRIST4/20
TIP IN1/7
SLAP0/5
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND1/5
OTHER0/12
MTL
PIT
Off the rush
5 G on 32
2.91 xG
4 G on 23
1.87 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.14 xG
1 G on 8
0.74 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 3-for-30, PIT 4-for-20. MTL scored 5 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. Dobes
MTL · 24/30 · .800
started · 59:04 · OT loss
-3.1
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
39
Avg chance faced
7.5%
Stopped vs expected
0.846 vs 0.925
Rebounds allowed
8 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.6-0.4
Medium5/212.0-3.0
Low0/150.3+0.3
Shorthanded2/90.9-1.1
Tips & deflections1/70.4-0.6
The save
22% chance stopped, a wrist from 19 ft · P1 17:29
The one to have back
6% chance went in, a wrist from 38 ft · P2 00:32

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

A. Silovs
PIT · 20/25 · .800
started · 61:33 · win
-1.8
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
46
Avg chance faced
7.0%
Stopped vs expected
0.891 vs 0.930
Rebounds allowed
1
By dangerG/attxGsaved
Medium3/262.9-0.1
Low2/200.3-1.6
Shorthanded2/60.7-1.3
Tips & deflections0/50.5+0.5
The save
17% chance stopped, a snap from 26 ft · P2 03:16
The one to have back
5% chance went in, a wrist from 29 ft · P1 03:49

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: N. Suzuki (MTL), 22:43 of ice, 1-3, 66% of the expected goals while he was out.

MTL18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
N. SuzukiC22:431-366A+
L. HutsonD29:060-353A
C. CaufieldR22:502-049A
I. DemidovR16:031-122A
C. KreiderL14:571-140A
J. AndersonR12:100-092C
N. DobsonD23:040-142C
J. SlafkovskýL18:120-068C
J. EvansC14:360-044C
A. NewhookC15:430-033D
Z. BolducR11:310-062D
M. MathesonD26:240-047D
A. TexierL9:140-043D
A. CarrierD8:320-059D
J. StrubleD16:090-048D
A. XhekajD13:430-031F
K. DachC11:400-025F
P. DanaultC11:250-024F
PIT18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
T. NovakC14:462-169A+
E. MalkinC19:451-249A+
B. KindelC14:141-076A
E. KarlssonD19:380-255B
K. LetangD19:300-239B
S. GirardD21:111-054B
S. CrosbyC19:530-160B
D. CarlileD20:321-048B
K. KorczakD17:390-162B
R. RakellR18:260-160B
E. ChinakhovR18:030-149C
H. LapierreC11:180-146C
F. HallanderC9:390-081C
C. DewarC13:540-041C
A. KuzmenkoL11:390-045D
T. van RiemsdykD18:080-039D
N. RobertsonL13:350-045F
B. LizotteC14:490-035F

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, MTL: O. Kapanen, A. Engstrom, F. Xhekaj. Scratched, PIT: E. Soderblom, I. Solovyov, V. Koivunen. Referees Trevor Hanson and Liam Maaskant; linesmen Jesse Marquis and David Brisebois.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionMTLPIT
Offense
▸Basis

MTL Created 3.20 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 0 high-danger shots (0.00 xG) and 32 rush shots (2.91 xG).

PIT Created 3.75 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.42 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.87 xG).

B
84
A-
91
Defense
▸Basis

MTL Allowed 3.75 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.42 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.87 xG).

PIT Allowed 3.20 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 0 high-danger shots (0.00 xG) and 32 rush shots (2.91 xG).

F
59
D
66
Transition
▸Basis

MTL Rush shots 32–23, rush xG 2.91–1.87 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

PIT Rush shots 23–32, rush xG 1.87–2.91 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

A-
90
D-
60
Special teams
▸Basis

MTL 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.08 PP xG.

PIT 2-for-4 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 0.86 PP xG.

F
50
A+
100
Goaltending
▸Basis

MTL -2.25 goals saved above expected on 30 shots against.

PIT -1.80 goals saved above expected on 25 shots against.

F
52
F
57
Discipline
▸Basis

MTL Took 6 penalties for 12 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

PIT Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 6 for 12 on the other side.

D
65
B
85
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

MTL Finishing +1.80 goals vs xG plus -2.25 GSAx of save luck = -0.45 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

PIT Finishing +2.25 goals vs xG plus -1.80 GSAx of save luck = +0.45 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C-
71
C+
79
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGPIT

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 32 rush shots worth 2.91 xG (5 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHMTL

Dangerous off the rush

5 goals on 32 rush shots worth 2.91 xG.

WARNINGMTL

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 1.87 xG (4 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

WARNINGMTL

J. Dobes couldn't make the stop

J. Dobes allowed 6 on 30 shots (0.800) — 2.25 goals worse than expected.

Reassess the crease rotation before the next start.

STRENGTHPIT

Dangerous off the rush

4 goals on 23 rush shots worth 1.87 xG.

LUCKPIT

Ran hot in front of the net

Scored 6 on 3.75 xG — +2.25 above expected. Shooting luck like that regresses.

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
46 shots
5
Final
86 shots
PIT
40 shots
6
MTL attackPIT attack
MTL PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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
N. Suzuki
#14 · C · MTL
1 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 22:43 on ice · +4
L. Hutson
#48 · D · MTL
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 29:06 on ice · +1
E. Malkin
#71 · C · PIT
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:45 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 3, 9:04 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

This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects a 3.2–3.5 game with Pittsburgh at 54% win probability — coin-flip hockey.

The Penguins own the game's underlying play. They're controlling 70.7% of expected goals at 5-on-5 while Montreal manages 56.7%, and that territorial advantage shows in shot attempts: Pittsburgh leads 63.9% to Montreal's 50.6%. If Pittsburgh plays its systems clean, Montreal will spend the night inside its own half.

But the Penguins' dominance comes with a caveat. Their shooting and save rates combined are running at 1.129 — well above sustainability. Montreal's at 1.071 and running the same way: both teams are punching above their luck line, and some regression is waiting.

Goaltending is a wild card. J. Dobes, Montreal's starter, has one game under his belt with a 92.9% save percentage and plus-0.7 saves above expected. A. Silovs has matched that single appearance for Pittsburgh, posting a 100.0% save percentage and plus-1.8 saves above expected — tiny samples, huge variance. Silovs has the raw efficiency edge so far.

Montreal's scoring comes clustered tight to the net: eight goals on 38 shots from the slot works out to 21% of their output. Pittsburgh, sprawled across wider territory, has eight goals on 67 attempts from there — 12% of theirs. If Montreal protects that high-danger space, they keep this low-scoring. If Pittsburgh's underlying volume translates to finish, they pull away.

This is a matchup where process (Pittsburgh) is sharper than result (roughly even), and where luck has inflated both teams beyond what their fundamentals deserve. The model sees a near-toss-up because it has to account for both facts at once: the Penguins should win, but the Canadiens' roster performance — riding unsustainable hot streaks — narrows the gap. It's the closest game on the board.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 54%
55%
PIT
Model favorite
45%
55%
MTL50PIT

PIT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 3.2–3.5 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
MTL← edge
edge →PIT
56.7%70.7%
50.6%63.9%
3.734.53
2.851.88
3.007.00
2.000.00
1.0711.129

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.071 vs 1.129) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 1
MTL
1-0-0
+1 GD · 3d rest
PIT
1-0-0
+7 GD · 2d rest
1.071
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.129
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Penguins own the underlying play

The Penguins own the underlying play — 70.7% 5v5 xG vs 56.7%.

TACTICAL

The Penguins drive Corsi at 63.9%

The Penguins drive Corsi at 63.9% — expect territorial tilt.

WARNINGPIT

Regression watch: Penguins

The Penguins' PDO is 1.129 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

WARNINGMTL

Regression watch: Canadiens

The Canadiens' PDO is 1.071 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

Where the edges live
  • The Penguins own the underlying play — 70.7% 5v5 xG vs 56.7%.
  • The Penguins drive Corsi at 63.9% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Penguins' PDO is 1.129 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.071 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Penguins own the underlying play — 70.7% 5v5 xG vs 56.7%.
  • The Penguins drive Corsi at 63.9% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: J. Dobes (+0.7 GSAx in 1 GP, 92.9% SV) vs A. Silovs (+1.8 GSAx in 1 GP, 100.0% SV).
  • The Penguins' PDO is 1.129 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
vs TOR · Tue, Sep 29
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
3 days rest.929 last start59:36 played
Forwards · 12
  • C. Caufield15:55
  • N. Suzuki18:43
  • A. Newhook16:11
  • J. Anderson12:53
  • J. Slafkovský17:53
  • C. Kreider14:21
  • P. Danault15:37
  • J. Evans14:50
  • Z. Bolduc11:04
  • K. Dach11:07
  • A. Texier12:13
  • I. Demidov15:11
Defence · 6
  • M. Matheson25:07
  • A. Carrier21:54
  • J. Struble11:02
  • L. Hutson24:07
  • N. Dobson21:56
  • A. Xhekaj12:20
PIT
vs PHI · Wed, Sep 30
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
2 days rest1.000 last start60:00 played
Forwards · 12
  • F. Hallander10:55
  • N. Robertson15:02
  • T. Novak16:04
  • C. Dewar14:51
  • H. Lapierre13:02
  • E. Soderblom12:39
  • V. Koivunen13:50
  • B. Lizotte13:13
  • E. Chinakhov16:58
  • R. Rakell18:32
  • E. Malkin15:47
  • S. Crosby17:39
Defence · 6
  • K. Korczak18:31
  • S. Girard21:02
  • T. van Riemsdyk20:42
  • K. Letang18:44
  • E. Karlsson19:59
  • D. Carlile16:30

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.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page