Backcheck
Recap · BUF at PIT

Penguins hold off the Sabres

The Penguins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.36–2.94 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 5:40 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
BUF
Buffalo Sabres
2
Home
PIT
Pittsburgh Penguins
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.36Expected goals2.94
60% share for the better side
31Shot attempts (SOG)19
8High-danger chances3
60Corsi (all attempts)46
Score-adjusted: 60% / 40%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Penguins escaped with a 4-2 win despite forfeiting the underlying game. Pittsburgh's expected goals landed at 2.94 to Buffalo's 4.36—a split that reads 40-60 and should have favored the Sabres decisively. T. Jarry stole this one, stopping 29 of 31 shots at a 0.935 save percentage and posting a +2.36 above expected. U. Luukkonen was less fortunate, stopping 15 of 18.

The chasm opens at close range. Buffalo generated eight high-danger chances. They scored zero. Jarry was 8-for-8 on those chances—a shutout in the scoring area. Pittsburgh converted three of their four goals from low-danger territory, the kind of finishes that expose a goaltender's margins. Off the rush, Pittsburgh scored on three of 21 chances while Buffalo buried two of 27.

Pittsburgh won the game Buffalo should have won. The Penguins held 38 percent of shot attempts and 40 percent of expected goals. Connor Dewar's wrist shot from the slot in the third period (19:02) marked the moment Pittsburgh pulled away, but the Sabres' real collapse happened earlier—in Jarry's glove, and in their failure to finish the quality chances he left.

Buffalo underperformed their expected goals by 2.36, a cavernous miss rate. Pittsburgh overperformed by 1.06, half as much but enough. Goaltending decided this, and Jarry's 100 percent save percentage on high-danger chances left no room for interpretation.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF0 / 8 · 1.77 xG
PIT1 / 3 · 1.31 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF2 / 16 · 1.92 xG
PIT1 / 11 · 1.18 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF0 / 36 · 0.67 xG
PIT2 / 32 · 0.46 xG

BUF went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.77 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
2 G · 4.36 xG · -2.4
PIT
4 G · 2.94 xG · +1.1
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
U. LuukkonenBUF
-0.1
T. JarryPIT
+2.4

BUF finished -2.4 against expected, PIT +1.1 — T. Jarry (PIT) saved 2.4 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
WRIST1/29
SLAP0/6
SNAP0/6
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
PIT
WRIST3/15
SLAP0/5
SNAP0/4
TIP IN1/2
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/16
BUF
PIT
Off the rush
2 G on 27 · 2.83 xG
3 G on 21 · 2.50 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.62 xG
0 G on 1 · 0.10 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-29, PIT 3-for-15. PIT scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
R. Shea
#5 · D · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 19:10 TOI · +2
J. Quinn
#22 · R · BUF
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:39 TOI · +1
J. Zucker
#17 · L · BUF
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:28 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • PIT won despite being outplayed by xG (40%). Goaltending or finishing carried them.
  • T. Jarry (PIT) stopped 2.4 goals above expected.
  • BUF couldn't convert — 0/8 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • PIT scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • PIT was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • BUF was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 27 rush chances.
  • BUF created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BUF underperformed xG by 2.4 — wasted quality chances.
  • T. Jarry (PIT) saved 2.4 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • T. Jarry was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 8 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · BUF at PIT · 7:00 PM ET

Sabres at Penguins: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 5:39 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
PIT
Model favorite
47%
53%
BUF50PIT

PIT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.52.7 PIT; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

BUF← edge
edge →PIT
50.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
49.0%Corsi%50.0%
2.55xGF / 602.66
2.55xGA / 602.55
2.35Goals for / gm2.45
1.90Goals against / gm2.12
1.020PDO — luck, not skill1.012

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.020 vs 1.012) says BUF has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.5–2.7 game with Pittsburgh at 53% win probability. This is about as close to even as the numbers allow.

The underlying metrics confirm it. Buffalo runs 50.0% expected-goal share and 49.0% Corsi%, Pittsburgh 51.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%. Both teams are fighting to a draw in possession and shot quality. Buffalo's PDO of 1.020 versus Pittsburgh's 1.012 tells a story: the Sabres are riding hot, and regression is coming.

Jason Zucker is Buffalo's engine. At 1.07 xG/60 with 15.1% shooting, he's produced 14 goals and 14 assists, 6 from high-danger areas. Josh Doan tracks him at 1.01 xG/60 and 11.5% conversion (15 goals, 18 assists), though only 2 came from high-danger areas. Pittsburgh counters with Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 high-danger). But Filip Hallander, who generates 1.28 xG/60, is sidelined pending evaluation after being recalled.

Both teams have defensive vulnerabilities. Jack Quinn (Buffalo) and Caleb Jones (Pittsburgh) are weak links. Here's the odd part: neither team has scored high-danger or rebound goals at any rate, suggesting both goaltending and structure are holding.

The 53% for Pittsburgh is real but narrow. This is a coin flip.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters