Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater

Breakdown · VGK at SJS

Golden Knights edge the Sharks in overtime

Final / OTThu, Oct 9

VGKVegas Golden Knights4 SJSSan Jose Sharks3

The verdict · stolen

The Golden Knights stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.85–3.61 and won anyway.

VGK 4 · SJS 3

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:21 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited 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

Vegas won 4–3 in overtime. San Jose lost despite owning 56% of expected goals (3.61–2.85). This was a heist.

The Sharks controlled the game by every process metric. They held 43% of shot attempts (23–31) but generated superior quality: 0.068 xG per shot versus Vegas's 0.046. San Jose created eight high-danger chances to Vegas's four. By any analytical measure, SJS played the better game.

Vegas won anyway, through goaltending variance and clinical shooting. A. Schmid outperformed his xG by 0.61 (20/23, 0.870 SV%) while A. Nedeljkovic underperformed by 1.15 (27/31, 0.871 SV%). Vegas overshot their expected output by 1.15 goals overall.

The margins of difference: Vegas converted 50% of high-danger chances (2 of 4) and scored three goals from 33 rush attempts. The power play was deadly—2 PPG on 12 shots. San Jose crashed the net for four rebound opportunities but only converted one. They had the chances; Vegas had the finish.

Reilly Smith's wrist shot from the doorstep in overtime (1:24) ended it. The three-star list reads as a Vegas victory lap: J. Eichel delivered 1G, 1A in 22:34; M. Stone added two assists in 19:22; S. Mukhamadullin contributed two assists in 12:45. Their limited ice time reflected the game's reality—Vegas defending its lead, San Jose searching for possession.

This will sting for the Sharks. They played the better game and lost.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Oct 9

VGK

SJS

Golden Knights edge the Sharks in overtime

Chances 2.9 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sharks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

VGK

2.85

SJS

3.61

44% of the chances56%

The board read VGK 4, SJS 3. The chances read VGK 2.9, SJS 3.6.

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

Luck check

VGK

+1.1

goals above expected

VGK2.85 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

SJS3.61 expected · 3 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

Every goal, in order

P1 05:31SJSJ. Skinner0–1
P1 08:09VGKB. Howden1–1
P2 06:59SJSA. WennbergPP1–2
P2 14:22VGKP. DorofeyevPP2–2
P3 02:59SJSP. Kurashev2–3
P3 18:26VGKJ. EichelPP3–3
OT 01:24VGKR. Smith4–3

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

Where the shots came from

VGK

47 shots

Final

82 shots

SJS

35 shots

VGK SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VGKSJS

2 / 4

0.92 xG

High danger

1 / 8

2.40 xG

1 / 12

1.13 xG

Medium

2 / 8

0.81 xG

1 / 46

0.80 xG

Low

0 / 37

0.40 xG

The Golden Knights buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A. Schmid

+0.6

VGK · 20/23

D-

A. Nedeljkovic

−1.1

SJS · 27/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Golden Knights edge the Sharks in overtime

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 / 08 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 10–9

05:31SJSJ. Skinner(T. Dellandrea, S. Mukhamadullin)0–1
08:09VGKB. Howden(K. Kolesar, B. Hutton)1–1

2ndshots 11–6

06:59SJSA. Wennbergpower play(W. Eklund, J. Klingberg)1–2
14:22VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play(M. Stone, J. Eichel)2–2

3rdshots 8–8

02:59SJSP. Kurashev(D. Orlov, S. Mukhamadullin)2–3
18:26VGKJ. Eichelpower play(M. Stone, T. Hertl)3–3

OTshots 2–0

01:24VGKR. Smith(S. Theodore)4–3

score reads VGK–SJS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.85

VGK chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.008

VGK puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

53.9%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.85Expected goals3.61

SJS 56% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal23

4High-danger chances8

62All attempts (Corsi)53

Adjusted for score: VGK 55% · SJS 45%

Faceoffs · SJS won44%off45%neu41%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VGK2 / 4 · 0.92 xG

SJS1 / 8 · 2.40 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VGK1 / 12 · 1.13 xG

SJS2 / 8 · 0.81 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VGK1 / 46 · 0.80 xG

SJS0 / 37 · 0.40 xG

SJS went 1-for-8 from high danger on 2.40 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VGK

4 G · 2.85 xG · +1.1

SJS

3 G · 3.61 xG · -0.6

012345

VGK finished +1.1 against expected, SJS -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

VGK

WRIST3/25

SNAP1/8

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/0

POKE0/0

OTHER0/15

SJS

WRIST1/23

SNAP0/1

SLAP0/3

TIP IN1/2

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

BAT1/2

POKE0/1

OTHER0/18

VGK

SJS

Off the rush

3 G on 33

2.53 xG

1 G on 18

2.55 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.05 xG

1 G on 4

0.81 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 3-for-25, SJS 1-for-23. VGK scored 3 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

A. Schmid

VGK · 20/23 · .870

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/82.4+1.4

Medium2/80.8-1.2

Low0/370.4+0.4

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. Nedeljkovic

SJS · 27/31 · .871

-1.1

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/40.9-1.1

Medium1/121.1+0.1

Low1/460.8-0.2

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VGK

47 shots

Final

82 shots

SJS

35 shots

VGK SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK left, SJS 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

J. Eichel

#9 · C · —

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:34 on ice · +1

M. Stone

#61 · R · —

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:22 on ice · +1

S. Mukhamadullin

#85 · D · —

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 12:45 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:30 AMEdited 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 model projects a VGK 3.3–2.9 SJS game with the Golden Knights at 55% win probability. Vegas owns the underlying play: 54.5% 5v5 xG to San Jose's 46.5%, and a 52.3% Corsi edge signals territorial control. The complicating factor is PDO. Vegas is running cold at 0.983 while the Sharks sit at 0.998—a regression gap that favors the favorites. The Knights are due for positive luck; San Jose is not.

The Golden Knights' offense runs through Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60, 3G 6A, 1 HD goal, 4.1% shooting) and Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 HD goal, 4.3% shooting). Both are core threats Vegas will leverage.

San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, whose 1.10 xG/60 leads the matchup and backs 5G 1A and 2 high-danger goals. His 16.1% shooting reflects some variance, but the underlying xG is the real signal. Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, 1 HD goal, 15.0% shooting) carries secondary punch; his elevated shooting outpaces his expected output.

Vegas' shutdown task: neutralize Regenda. San Jose's is simpler: contest Saad and limit the zone time Vegas captures at 52.3% Corsi. The xG gap (54.5% to 46.5%) is the story. If the Sharks can't manufacture their own chances, no PDO luck pulls them out.

Expect Vegas to dominate the quiet parts—shot share, possession—and the loud ones, assuming the PDO noise breaks their way. Historically, it does.

Players to Watch

Vegas: Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60, 4.1% shooting), Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 4.3% shooting)

San Jose: Pavol Regenda (1.10 xG/60, 16.1% shooting), Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 15.0% shooting)

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 55%

55%

VGK

Model favorite

55%

45%

VGK50SJS

VGK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VGK 3.3–2.9 SJS; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates

Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG

VGK← edge

edge →SJS

54.5%46.5%

52.3%47.0%

3.262.87

2.713.30

3.223.04

2.953.54

0.9830.998

VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 0.998) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

VGK

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

SJS

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.983

VGK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

SJS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALSJS

Shutdown Assignment: Sharks

Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Saad (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

TACTICALVGK

Shutdown Assignment: Golden Knights

Key matchup: Neutralize Pavol Regenda (5G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

STRENGTHSJS

Pavol Regenda drives the Sharks offense

Pavol Regenda: 5G 1A, 1.10 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.

WARNINGVGK

Exploitable minutes: Rasmus Andersson

Rasmus Andersson is on ice for 2.49 xGA/60 and 68 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Rasmus Andersson's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.3% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.3% — expect territorial tilt.
The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

VGK

Brandon Saad3G 6A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh

Tomas Hertl5G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh

SJS

Pavol Regenda5G 1A

1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh

Igor Chernyshov6G 8A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page