Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Sat, Oct 10 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at OTT

Senators edge the Predators in a shootout

Final / OTSat, Oct 10
NSHNashville Predators2OTTOttawa Senators3
The verdict · earned

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

NSH 2 · OTT 3
◆ By the ModelOct 10, 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

Ottawa beat Nashville 3-2 in a shootout after erasing a two-goal deficit. The Predators led 2-0 in the first period, and the Senators tied it late in the third.

The most telling number came from Nashville's net. M. Murray stopped 1.24 more goals than his shots should have allowed, and the Predators still lost. That is the figure that cuts against the scoreboard.

The chance data sided with Ottawa. The Senators took 58% of five-on-five expected goals, a measure that weighs each shot by how often that kind of chance tends to score. Ottawa generated the better looks at even strength.

Nashville struck first when R. Colton beat L. Ullmark with a snap shot from 20 feet off the rush. J. Marchessault made it 2-0 on the power play. T. Stützle pulled Ottawa within one on the power play early in the second.

The equalizer came from D. Batherson. His deflection from 5 feet, which the expected goals model rated a 40% chance, tied the game late in the third. Ottawa's two regulation goals both came on the power play, on 17 shots overall.

Both teams were dangerous off the rush. Ottawa turned 28 rush chances into two goals, and Nashville turned 20 into two.

The shootout turned on Shane Pinto's snap shot from the slot. L. Ullmark stopped 16 of 18 shots, a 0.889 save percentage.

Three Stars

  • T. Stützle (OTT): one goal, one assist in 26:06
  • T. Chabot (OTT): one assist in 28:43
  • R. Josi (NSH): one assist in 24:19

The numbers can't say whether the finishing was luck or skill, or why the benches were run the way they were.

The goals

  • NSH 1–0, 08:50 of the first. R. Colton, snap shot from 20 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Assists: V. Pinchuk. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • NSH 2–0, 13:10 of the first on the power play. J. Marchessault, wrist shot from 15 feet, a 12% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Assists: S. Stamkos, R. Josi. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • OTT 2–1, 09:29 of the second on the power play. T. Stützle, wrist shot from 14 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past M. Murray. Assists: D. Cozens, T. Chabot. 6 seconds after an OTT faceoff win by T. Stützle. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • OTT 2–2, 18:37 of the third on the power play. D. Batherson, deflection from 5 feet, a 41% chance by the model (off the rush), past M. Murray. Assists: S. Pinto, T. Stützle. Win probability moved 47 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 · SO · Oct 10
NSH
2
OTT
3

Senators edge the Predators in a shootout

Chances 2.3 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
2.33
OTT
3.24
42% of the chances58%

The board read NSH 2, OTT 3. The chances read NSH 2.3, OTT 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−0.2
goals above expected
OTT3.24 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH2.33 expected · 2 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
+47
win-probability points
6% → 52% for OTT
OTT 100%the game, start to finish
NSH 100%P1 · P2 · P3
OTTP3 18:37 · PP

D. Batherson makes it 2–2.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 08:50NSHR. Colton14%1–0
  2. P1 13:10NSHJ. MarchessaultPP12%2–0
  3. P2 09:29OTTT. StützlePP14%2–1
  4. P3 18:37OTTD. BathersonPP41%2–2
  5. SO 00:00NSHR. O'ReillyPP2–2
  6. SO 00:00OTTT. StützlePP2–2
  7. SO 00:00OTTS. PintoPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
29 shots
2
Final
68 shots
OTT
39 shots
2
NSH attackOTT attack
NSH OTT Goal

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

29
shots · 2 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHOTT
0 / 2
0.69 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.12 xG
2 / 12
1.32 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.66 xG
0 / 33
0.32 xG
Low
0 / 47
0.46 xG

High-danger looks: NSH 0 of 2, OTT 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
M. Murray
+1.2
NSH · 18/20 · 64:57
Best save · a 26% chance, wrist from 5 ft · P2 13:20
C
L. Ullmark
−0.2
OTT · 16/18 · 63:43
Best save · a 19% chance, snap from 25 ft · P4 04:34
Best skater on the ice
A+
OTT
T. Stützle
C · impact 2.16
26:06
Ice time
1–1
G – A
0.86
Own xG
53%
xG share
Impact · top 4
T. Stützle2.2A+
D. Batherson1.8A+
D. Cozens1.4A+
R. Colton0.9A
Report card
NSHOTT
OffenseCB+
DefenseDC
TransitionDB
Special teamsDC
GoaltendingB+C+
DisciplineCC
LuckB-D+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why OTT won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Power play cashed in
  3. 03Won on the merits
Why NSH lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators edge the Predators in a shootout

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 7–4
  1. 08:50NSHR. Colton(V. Pinchuk)1–0

    Snap shot from 20 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: B. Skjei, N. Perbix, J. Drury, A. Edstrom, R. Schaefer · against F. Zetterlund, D. Cozens, R. Greig, N. Matinpalo, H. Stanley

  2. 13:10NSHJ. Marchessaultpower play(S. Stamkos, R. Josi)2–0

    Wrist shot from 15 feet, a 12% chance (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: S. Stamkos, R. O'Reilly, J. Marchessault, B. Skjei, N. Perbix · against A. Burakovsky, T. Chabot, D. Batherson, J. Spence, T. Stützle

2ndshots 4–9
  1. 09:29OTTT. Stützlepower play(D. Cozens, T. Chabot)2–1

    Wrist shot from 14 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past M. Murray. 6s after an OTT faceoff win by T. Stützle. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: C. Giroux, M. Amadio, T. Chabot, S. Pinto, J. Spence · against S. Stamkos, R. O'Reilly, J. Marchessault, J. Struble, A. Wilsby

3rdshots 4–5
  1. 18:37OTTD. Bathersonpower play(S. Pinto, T. Stützle)2–2

    Deflection from 5 feet, a 41% chance (off the rush), past M. Murray. Win probability moved 47 points.On the ice: M. Amadio, S. Pinto, R. Greig, T. Kleven, N. Matinpalo · against A. Kerfoot, J. Drury, J. Struble, A. Edstrom, A. Wilsby

OTshots 3–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00NSHR. O'Reillypower play2–2
    2. 00:00OTTT. Stützlepower play2–2
    3. 00:00OTTS. Pintopower play2–2

    score reads NSH–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.24
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.988
    OTT puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    58.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.33Expected goals3.24
    OTT 58% of the chance quality
    18Shots on goal20
    2High-danger chances4
    47All attempts (Corsi)65
    Adjusted for score: NSH 38% · OTT 62%
    Faceoffs · OTT won67%off47%neu44%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH0 / 2 · 0.69 xG
    OTT1 / 4 · 1.12 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH2 / 12 · 1.32 xG
    OTT1 / 14 · 1.66 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH0 / 33 · 0.32 xG
    OTT0 / 47 · 0.46 xG

    NSH went 0-for-2 from high danger on 0.69 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    2 G · 2.33 xG · -0.3
    OTT
    3 G · 3.24 xG · -0.2
    01234

    NSH finished -0.3 against expected, OTT -0.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    WRIST1/17
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/1
    SNAP1/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/18
    OTT
    WRIST1/24
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/8
    SNAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/26
    NSH
    OTT
    Off the rush
    2 G on 20
    1.76 xG
    2 G on 28
    2.33 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.65 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 1-for-17, OTT 1-for-24. NSH 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
    M. Murray
    NSH · 18/20 · .900
    started · 64:57 · OT loss
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    Attempts faced
    39
    Avg chance faced
    8.3%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.949 vs 0.917
    Rebounds allowed
    4
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/41.1+0.1
    Medium1/141.7+0.7
    Low0/210.5+0.5
    Shorthanded2/131.8-0.2
    Tips & deflections1/50.6-0.4
    The save
    26% chance stopped, a wrist from 5 ft · P2 13:20
    The one to have back
    14% chance went in, a wrist from 14 ft · P2 09:29

    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

    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 16/18 · .889
    started · 63:43 · win
    -0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    Attempts faced
    27
    Avg chance faced
    6.8%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.926 vs 0.932
    Rebounds allowed
    0
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium2/121.3-0.7
    Low0/140.3+0.3
    Shorthanded1/40.3-0.7
    Tips & deflections0/40.2+0.2
    The save
    19% chance stopped, a snap from 25 ft · P4 04:34
    The one to have back
    12% chance went in, a wrist from 15 ft · P1 13:10

    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: T. Stützle (OTT), 26:06 of ice, 1-1, 53% of the expected goals while he was out.

    NSH18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    R. ColtonC8:221-019A
    J. MarchessaultR17:531-036A
    V. PinchukC11:100-122B
    R. JosiD24:190-148B
    S. StamkosC19:010-150B
    M. WoodR15:220-071B
    F. ForsbergL20:360-068B
    N. HoglanderL12:330-074C
    R. SchaeferL10:430-071C
    A. WilsbyD20:240-049C
    N. HagueD18:540-037D
    J. StrubleD19:070-040D
    A. KerfootC14:500-021D
    A. EdstromC13:570-034D
    R. O'ReillyC22:070-046D
    N. PerbixD18:220-040F
    J. DruryC19:080-029F
    B. SkjeiD21:050-040F
    OTT18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    T. StützleC26:061-153A+
    D. BathersonR19:451-063A+
    D. CozensC20:160-159A+
    T. ChabotD28:430-162A
    S. PintoC21:410-172A
    C. GirouxR18:420-071A
    J. SpenceD24:300-064B
    M. AmadioR15:470-081B
    N. MatinpaloD15:550-069C
    T. KlevenD21:060-049C
    R. GreigC20:130-056C
    C. YakemchukD19:520-036C
    S. HallidayC7:570-065C
    N. CousinsC9:580-049D
    W. FoegeleL9:170-050D
    F. ZetterlundL8:300-037D
    H. StanleyD8:580-044F
    A. BurakovskyL11:440-039F

    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, NSH: I. Lyubushkin, J. Ahcan, M. Bourque. Scratched, OTT: H. Hodgson, C. Crotty, J. Sanderson. Referees Cody Beach and Pierre Lambert; linesmen Caleb Apperson and David Brisebois.

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionNSHOTT
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    NSH Created 2.33 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.69 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.76 xG).

    OTT Created 3.24 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.12 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.33 xG).

    C
    74
    B+
    87
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    NSH Allowed 3.24 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.12 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.33 xG).

    OTT Allowed 2.33 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.69 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.76 xG).

    D
    63
    C
    76
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    NSH Rush shots 20–28, rush xG 1.76–2.33 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    OTT Rush shots 28–20, rush xG 2.33–1.76 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    D
    65
    B
    85
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    NSH 1-for-6 on the power play (17%; league ≈21%) with 0.26 PP xG.

    OTT 1-for-6 on the power play (17%; league ≈21%) with 1.22 PP xG.

    D
    66
    C
    73
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    NSH +1.24 goals saved above expected on 20 shots against.

    OTT +0.33 goals saved above expected on 18 shots against.

    B+
    87
    C+
    78
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    NSH Took 6 penalties for 12 PIM vs 6 for 12 on the other side.

    OTT Took 6 penalties for 12 PIM vs 6 for 12 on the other side.

    C
    75
    C
    75
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    NSH Finishing -0.33 goals vs xG plus +1.24 GSAx of save luck = +0.91 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    OTT Finishing -1.24 goals vs xG plus +0.33 GSAx of save luck = -0.91 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    B-
    82
    D+
    68
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    WARNINGNSH

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 28 rush shots worth 2.33 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    STRENGTHOTT

    Dangerous off the rush

    2 goals on 28 rush shots worth 2.33 xG.

    WARNINGOTT

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 20 rush shots worth 1.76 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    STRENGTHNSH

    Dangerous off the rush

    2 goals on 20 rush shots worth 1.76 xG.

    STRENGTHOTT

    Power play cashed in

    1-for-6 on the power play (17%) on 1.22 PP xG.

    STRENGTHNSH

    Power play cashed in

    1-for-6 on the power play (17%) on 0.26 PP xG.

    68 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    29 shots
    2
    Final
    68 shots
    OTT
    39 shots
    2
    NSH attackOTT attack
    NSH OTT Goal

    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 — NSH left, OTT 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
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 26:06 on ice · +1
    T. Chabot
    #72 · D · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 28:43 on ice · +1
    R. Josi
    #59 · D · NSH
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:19 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page