Senators run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers
The Senators earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The underlying story
Ottawa's 3-2 victory reflects genuine dominance—the Senators controlled 69% of expected goals (5.45–2.41)—yet they underperformed their own metrics by 2.45 goals. The win was real, but it required Pittsburgh's inability to finish.
The shot battle was one-sided. Pittsburgh attempted 16 shots to Ottawa's 31, holding just 34% of attempts. The quality gap widened: the Senators generated 0.083 xG per shot compared to Pittsburgh's 0.062. Ottawa's superiority was structural, not random.
But the Senators only scored three goals on 5.45 expected, managing 0 for 6 on high-danger chances. Pittsburgh's goaltending—not structure—kept the game competitive. A. Silovs made 28 saves on 31 attempts, exceeding expected save percentage by 2.45 goals and stopping all six high-danger chances.
The Penguins crashed the net effectively, converting 1 of 3 rebound opportunities. Ottawa did that work better—2 of 4—but Silovs' wall on premium looks forced the Senators to earn the win through volume.
Claude Giroux's deflection from the doorstep (P3, 14:52) broke the tie and stood up as the winner. L. Ullmark's 14 saves on 16 shots were competent. Silovs stole the game with his elite performance, denying Ottawa the dominant win their underlying numbers earned.
The danger ladder
OTT went 0-for-6 from high danger on 2.06 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.
Finishing vs expected
OTT finished -2.5 against expected, PIT -0.4 — A. Silovs (PIT) saved 2.5 goals above expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-31, PIT 2-for-16.
- A. Silovs (PIT) stopped 2.5 goals above expected.
- OTT had the higher quality looks — 0.083 xG/shot vs 0.062.
- OTT couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
- PIT created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- OTT created 4 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- OTT underperformed xG by 2.5 — wasted quality chances.
- A. Silovs (PIT) saved 2.5 goals above expected — stole the show.
- A. Silovs was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 6 high-danger shots.