Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · DAL at PIT

Penguins edge the Stars in a shootout

Final / OTSat, Oct 10

DALDallas Stars1 PITPittsburgh Penguins2

The verdict · earned

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

DAL 1 · PIT 2

◆ 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

The Penguins beat the Stars 2-1 in a shootout, and the final score hides how even the game was. Pittsburgh's rush chances mattered most, and Rickard Rakell's wrist shot from the slot was the turning point.

Start with the number that most disagrees with the result. The Penguins held only 44% of shot attempts and still won, so Dallas generated more of the play than the scoreboard shows.

On expected goals, which measures the quality of chances rather than their count, Pittsburgh had only a slight edge. High-danger chances were even at two apiece. Dallas finished 1.91 goals below its expected total, more than Pittsburgh's 1.20 shortfall.

C. Dewar scored for Pittsburgh at 01:57 of the third, on a backhander from 27 feet off the rush. The model rated that chance at 3%, so it was a long shot. T. Seguin tied it at 19:30 of the third with a power-play tip-in from 10 feet, a chance the model rated at 11%. It came eight seconds after R. Hintz won a faceoff for Dallas. J. Robertson and M. Heiskanen assisted.

The goaltending was close. J. Oettinger stopped 19 of 20 for Dallas, a save percentage of 0.950, and kept out 2.20 more goals than that workload should have allowed. A. Silovs stopped 24 of 25 for Pittsburgh, a 0.960 save percentage, and tilted the crease toward the Penguins. Dallas created four rebound chances and converted none.

The biggest concern on the report card was transition defense, which let 29 rush shots through in every period.

The goals

PIT 0–1, 01:57 of the third. C. Dewar, backhander from 27 feet, a 3% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Oettinger. Assists: B. Lizotte. Win probability moved 26 points.
DAL 1–1, 19:30 of the third on the power play. T. Seguin, tip-in from 10 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Silovs. Assists: J. Robertson, M. Heiskanen. 8 seconds after a DAL faceoff win by R. Hintz. Win probability moved 47 points.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Oct 10

DAL

PIT

Penguins edge the Stars in a shootout

Chances 2.9 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Penguins took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

2.91

PIT

3.20

48% of the chances52%

The board read DAL 1, PIT 2. The chances read DAL 2.9, PIT 3.2.

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

Luck check

PIT

−1.2

goals above expected

PIT3.20 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

DAL2.91 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Stars left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

The swing

+47

win-probability points

2% → 49% for DAL

PIT 100%the game, start to finish

DAL 100%P1 · P2 · P3

DALP3 19:30 · PP

T. Seguin makes it 1–1.

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

Every goal, in order

P3 01:57PITC. Dewar3%0–1
P3 19:30DALT. SeguinPP11%1–1
SO 00:00PITB. KindelPP1–1
SO 00:00PITS. CrosbyPP1–1
SO 00:00DALT. SeguinPP1–1
SO 00:00DALW. JohnstonPP1–1
SO 00:00PITR. RakellPP1–1

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

Where the shots came from

DAL

37 shots

Final

79 shots

PIT

42 shots

DAL PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALPIT

0 / 2

0.43 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.41 xG

1 / 21

2.22 xG

Medium

0 / 26

2.53 xG

0 / 31

0.27 xG

Low

1 / 40

0.26 xG

High-danger looks: DAL 0 of 2, PIT 0 of 2.

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

In the net

J. Oettinger

+2.2

DAL · 19/20 · 63:52

Best save · a 23% chance, snap from 9 ft · P2 15:48

A. Silovs

+1.9

PIT · 24/25 · 64:52

Best save · a 23% chance, wrist from 7 ft · P3 04:02

Best skater on the ice

A+

DAL

J. Robertson

L · impact 1.62

21:36

Ice time

0–1

G – A

0.90

Own xG

67%

xG share

Impact · top 4

J. Robertson1.6A+

C. Dewar1.3A+

T. Seguin1.0A+

R. Hintz1.0A

Report card

DALPIT

OffenseB-B

DefenseDC-

TransitionD+B-

Special teamsD-F

GoaltendingA+A

DisciplineDB

LuckC+C

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

Why it went the way it went

Why PIT won

01Dangerous off the rush
02A. Silovs tilted the crease
03The moment it turned

Why DAL lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Cold finishing night
03Paraded to the penalty box

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins edge the Stars 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 5–4no goals

2ndshots 8–10no goals

3rdshots 10–4

01:57PITC. Dewar(B. Lizotte)0–1
Backhander from 27 feet, a 3% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Oettinger. Win probability moved 26 points.On the ice: K. Letang, C. Dewar, S. Stastney, B. Lizotte, N. Robertson · against M. Rantanen, S. Steel, N. Lundkvist, W. Johnston, L. Bichsel
19:30DALT. Seguinpower play(J. Robertson, M. Heiskanen)1–1
Tip-in from 10 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past A. Silovs. 8s after a DAL faceoff win by R. Hintz. Win probability moved 47 points.On the ice: J. Benn, E. Lindell, R. Hintz, J. Robertson, T. Harley · against E. Malkin, T. Novak, S. Girard, K. Korczak, E. Chinakhov

OTshots 2–2no goals

00:00PITB. Kindelpower play1–1
00:00PITS. Crosbypower play1–1
00:00DALT. Seguinpower play1–1
00:00DALW. Johnstonpower play1–1
00:00PITR. Rakellpower play1–1

score reads DAL–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.20

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.2

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.996

PIT puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

55.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.91Expected goals3.20

PIT 52% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal20

2High-danger chances2

54All attempts (Corsi)68

Adjusted for score: DAL 45% · PIT 55%

Faceoffs · PIT won65%off55%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL0 / 2 · 0.43 xG

PIT0 / 2 · 0.41 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL1 / 21 · 2.22 xG

PIT0 / 26 · 2.53 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL0 / 31 · 0.27 xG

PIT1 / 40 · 0.26 xG

PIT went 0-for-26 from medium danger on 2.53 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

1 G · 2.91 xG · -1.9

PIT

2 G · 3.20 xG · -1.2

01234

DAL finished -1.9 against expected, PIT -1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

WRIST0/22

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/2

SNAP0/3

TIP IN1/5

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/17

PIT

WRIST0/23

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND1/7

SNAP0/4

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/26

DAL

PIT

Off the rush

1 G on 24

2.19 xG

1 G on 29

2.69 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.43 xG

0 G on 2

0.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 0-for-22, PIT 0-for-23.

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. Oettinger

DAL · 19/20 · .950

started · 63:52 · OT loss

+2.2

saved above expected

the night

Attempts faced: 42
Avg chance faced: 7.6%
Stopped vs expected: 0.976 vs 0.924
Rebounds allowed: 2

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium0/262.5+2.5

Low1/140.3-0.7

Shorthanded0/100.9+0.9

Tips & deflections0/30.2+0.2

The save

23% chance stopped, a snap from 9 ft · P2 15:48

The one to have back

3% chance went in, a backhand from 27 ft · P3 01:57

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

A. Silovs

PIT · 24/25 · .960

started · 64:52 · win

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

Attempts faced: 37
Avg chance faced: 7.9%
Stopped vs expected: 0.973 vs 0.921
Rebounds allowed: 4

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium1/212.2+1.2

Low0/140.3+0.3

Shorthanded1/111.3+0.3

Tips & deflections1/60.6-0.4

The save

23% chance stopped, a wrist from 7 ft · P3 04:02

The one to have back

11% chance went in, a tip-in from 10 ft · P3 19:30

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: J. Robertson (DAL), 21:36 of ice, 0-1, 67% of the expected goals while he was out.

DAL18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
J. RobertsonL	21:36	0-1	3	0.90	67	0/0	1.62	4.50	A+
T. SeguinC	13:14	1-0	2	0.29	47	0/0	0.99	4.50	A+
R. HintzC	20:43	0-0	1	0.10	82	1/0	0.95	2.77	A
T. HarleyD	25:08	0-0	7	0.20	60	0/0	0.92	2.19	A
W. JohnstonC	21:20	0-0	1	0.32	68	0/0	0.64	1.79	B
M. RantanenR	23:09	0-0	4	0.27	72	0/2	0.60	1.57	B
M. HeiskanenD	30:24	0-1	0	0.00	50	0/1	0.49	0.97	B
J. BennL	10:53	0-0	1	0.03	71	0/0	0.18	0.99	C
O. BäckC	14:14	0-0	1	0.20	32	1/0	0.14	0.59	C
T. MyersD	12:41	0-0	0	0.04	31	0/0	0.07	0.32	C
J. HryckowianC	11:29	0-0	1	0.15	21	1/0	0.02	0.11	D
R. FaksaC	8:27	0-0	0	0.00	0	0/0	-0.03	-0.21	D
A. HyryR	13:01	0-0	1	0.07	34	0/0	-0.06	-0.25	D
S. SteelC	18:36	0-0	2	0.22	28	0/0	-0.08	-0.27	D
C. BlackwellC	10:30	0-0	0	0.00	13	0/0	-0.18	-1.06	D
E. LindellD	20:19	0-0	0	0.03	33	0/0	-0.27	-0.80	F
L. BichselD	13:57	0-0	1	0.10	33	0/1	-0.25	-1.08	F
N. LundkvistD	16:27	0-0	0	0.00	35	0/1	-0.28	-1.02	F

PIT18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
C. DewarC	12:14	1-0	3	0.47	64	0/0	1.30	6.36	A+
N. RobertsonL	11:28	0-0	2	0.27	77	1/0	0.68	3.54	A
B. LizotteC	12:34	0-1	0	0.12	46	0/0	0.67	3.19	A
K. LetangD	21:27	0-0	1	0.10	72	0/0	0.78	2.17	A
B. KindelC	19:28	0-0	2	0.25	60	1/0	0.61	1.87	B
S. StastneyD	12:58	0-0	1	0.00	80	0/0	0.46	2.13	B
E. MalkinC	19:54	0-0	2	0.34	60	0/0	0.52	1.56	B
S. CrosbyC	22:42	0-0	1	0.29	54	0/0	0.45	1.19	B
T. NovakC	15:39	0-0	1	0.39	60	0/0	0.35	1.36	C
E. ChinakhovR	15:54	0-0	2	0.28	57	0/0	0.33	1.24	C
S. GirardD	21:08	0-0	2	0.14	54	0/0	0.34	0.97	C
R. RakellR	21:44	0-0	1	0.12	54	1/1	0.30	0.83	C
E. SoderblomL	8:22	0-0	0	0.07	100	0/0	0.10	0.72	C
E. KarlssonD	27:10	0-0	2	0.19	45	0/0	0.08	0.18	D
H. LapierreC	11:29	0-0	0	0.00	100	0/1	0.03	0.16	D
B. RustR	20:28	0-0	0	0.08	27	1/0	-0.23	-0.68	D
K. KorczakD	16:44	0-0	0	0.00	28	0/0	-0.29	-1.06	F
D. CarlileD	17:45	0-0	0	0.08	22	0/1	-0.57	-1.93	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, DAL: K. Capobianco, J. Kiviranta. Scratched, PIT: T. van Riemsdyk, V. Koivunen. Referees Jean Hebert and Mike Sullivan; linesmen Mark Shewchyk and Dan Kelly.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionDALPIT

Offense

▸Basis

DAL Created 2.91 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.43 xG) and 24 rush shots (2.19 xG).

PIT Created 3.20 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.41 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.69 xG).

B-

Defense

▸Basis

DAL Allowed 3.20 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.41 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.69 xG).

PIT Allowed 2.91 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.43 xG) and 24 rush shots (2.19 xG).

C-

Transition

▸Basis

DAL Rush shots 24–29, rush xG 2.19–2.69 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

PIT Rush shots 29–24, rush xG 2.69–2.19 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D+

B-

Special teams

▸Basis

DAL 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 1.03 PP xG.

PIT 0-for-5 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.90 PP xG.

D-

Goaltending

▸Basis

DAL +2.20 goals saved above expected on 20 shots against.

PIT +1.91 goals saved above expected on 25 shots against.

A+

Discipline

▸Basis

DAL Took 5 penalties for 10 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

PIT Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 5 for 10 on the other side.

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

DAL Finishing -1.91 goals vs xG plus +2.20 GSAx of save luck = +0.29 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

PIT Finishing -2.20 goals vs xG plus +1.91 GSAx of save luck = -0.29 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

STRENGTHDAL

J. Oettinger stole it

J. Oettinger stopped 19 of 20 (0.950) — +2.20 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

WARNINGDAL

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 29 rush shots worth 2.69 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHPIT

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 29 rush shots worth 2.69 xG.

LUCKPIT

Cold finishing night

Scored 1 on 3.20 xG — -2.20 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

WARNINGPIT

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 24 rush shots worth 2.19 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHDAL

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 24 rush shots worth 2.19 xG.

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

37 shots

Final

79 shots

PIT

42 shots

DAL PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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 — DAL 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

M. Heiskanen

#4 · D · DAL

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 30:24 on ice · +1

J. Robertson

#21 · L · DAL

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:36 on ice · +1

T. Seguin

#91 · C · DAL

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 13:14 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page