Recap · SEA at BUF

Sabres edge the Kraken in a shootout

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

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:19 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity

Away

SEA

Seattle Kraken

Home

BUF

Buffalo Sabres

FINAL / OT

Process vs result

The underlying story

4.15Expected goals4.86

54% share for the better side

34Shot attempts (SOG)36

8High-danger chances7

59Corsi (all attempts)75

Score-adjusted: 42% / 59%

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Sabres' 3-2 shootout victory obscured a rare chance drought on both sides: Buffalo converted 0 of 7 high-danger chances, Seattle 0 of 8. The Kraken generated more scoring opportunities (8 to 7), a disagreement with the final score that expected goals only partially resolved—the Sabres held a 54–46 xG edge (4.86–4.15)—while shot attempts favored Buffalo by a thin margin (51%, 36–34 on goal).

Neither team separated itself in transition or around the net. The Sabres converted 2 of 38 rush chances; the Kraken 2 of 31. Around the net, the pattern repeated: Buffalo created 3 rebound opportunities with 0 conversions, Seattle 5 with 0. Both squandered their offensive chances entirely.

Goaltending masked the underlying parity. P. Grubauer (SEA) compiled a 0.944 SV% (+2.86 vs expected), while U. Luukkonen (BUF) posted 0.941 (+2.15). The Sabres underperformed their 4.86 xG by 1.86 goals; the Kraken underperformed their 4.15 by 2.15. Neither team earned the margin that separated them on the scoreboard.

Jack Quinn's snap shot from the doorstep in the shootout decided it—the only goal that mattered when regulation and overtime could not.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA0 / 8 · 2.00 xG

BUF0 / 7 · 1.97 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA2 / 12 · 1.41 xG

BUF1 / 21 · 2.31 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA0 / 39 · 0.73 xG

BUF1 / 47 · 0.57 xG

SEA went 0-for-8 from high danger on 2.00 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

2 G · 4.15 xG · -2.1

BUF

3 G · 4.86 xG · -1.9

0123456

Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)

P. GrubauerSEA

+2.9

U. LuukkonenBUF

+2.1

SEA finished -2.1 against expected, BUF -1.9 — P. Grubauer (SEA) saved 2.9 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

SNAP2/22

WRIST0/9

SLAP0/9

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/11

BUF

SNAP0/33

WRIST2/7

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/19

SEA

BUF

Off the rush

2 G on 31 · 2.82 xG

2 G on 38 · 3.71 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5 · 0.67 xG

0 G on 3 · 0.28 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 2-for-22, BUF 0-for-33. SEA scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types

Three stars · computed, not voted

C. Stephenson

#9 · C · SEA

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:03 TOI · +2

B. McMann

#74 · C · SEA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:14 TOI · +2

K. Kakko

#84 · R · SEA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:02 TOI · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model flagged

P. Grubauer (SEA) stopped 2.9 goals above expected.
Open game — 15 high-danger chances combined (BUF 7, SEA 8).
BUF couldn't convert — 0/7 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
SEA couldn't convert — 0/8 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
BUF was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 38 rush chances.
SEA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 31 rush chances.
BUF created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
SEA created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
BUF underperformed xG by 2.9 — wasted quality chances.
SEA underperformed xG by 2.1 — wasted quality chances.

Preview · SEA at BUF · 5:30 PM ET

The Sabres are the model's lean over the Kraken — with PDO regression in play

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:17 AMEdited for clarity

Win probability

The model's lean

55%

BUF

Model favorite

45%

55%

SEA50BUF

BUF by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.7 BUF; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates

Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

SEA← edge

edge →BUF

46.0%5v5 xG%50.0%

45.0%Corsi%49.0%

2.13xGF / 602.55

2.51xGA / 602.55

1.87Goals for / gm2.35

1.95Goals against / gm1.90

1.011PDO — luck, not skill1.020

BUF holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.011 vs 1.020) says BUF has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The Sabres are favored with a 56% win probability; the model projects 2.7 expected goals for Buffalo, 2.3 for Seattle. The edge stems from Buffalo's command of 5v5 play—not just recent form, which the Sabres also own.

Buffalo enters 6-2-2 over its last 10 games. The Kraken have stumbled, sitting at -11 goal differential in the same span. But form is secondary. At even strength, Buffalo dominates: 50.0% xG against Seattle's 46.0%, and 49.0% Corsi versus 45.0%. The underlying advantage is decisive.

Both teams are running hot on PDO: Buffalo at 1.020, Seattle at 1.011. Regression is coming. When it does, the Sabres' edge narrows but persists. The fundamental advantage is real.

Goaltending is a wildcard. A. Lyon starts on a back-to-back, so expect either a backup or a tired starter. Seattle's net becomes a liability.

Players to Watch

Jason Zucker (BUF) — 1.07 xG/60, 14 goals, 6 high-danger chances
Josh Doan (BUF) — 1.01 xG/60, 15 goals, 2 high-danger chances
Shane Wright (SEA) — 0.77 xG/60, 8 goals, 4 high-danger chances
Berkly Catton (SEA) — 0.68 xG/60, 6 goals, 5 high-danger chances

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh

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

Source · MoneyPuck skaters