Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Sat, Oct 11 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at EDM

Oilers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Oct 11
VANVancouver Canucks1EDMEdmonton Oilers3
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 1 · EDM 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:29 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

Edmonton's 3–1 win flatters Vancouver. The Oilers controlled 75% of expected goals (6.23–2.08), 71% of shot attempts (37–15), and generated three times as many high-danger chances (15–4). T. Demko kept it close, saving 4.23 goals above expected—his 0.944 save percentage prevented what should have been a blowout.

Edmonton struggled with execution despite dominance, underperforming their xG by 3.23 goals. C. Pickard was steady at the other end: 14 saves on 15 shots (0.933 SV%, +1.08 vs expected). The difference was shot quality. Edmonton generated 0.090 expected goals per shot; Vancouver managed 0.051—nearly double.

The Oilers converted 2 goals on 37 rush chances but squandered 6 rebound opportunities. Leon Draisaitl's backhander from the wing (P3, 18:47) sealed it, but Edmonton's dominance had already decided the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 11
VAN
1
EDM
3

Oilers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 6.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.08
EDM
6.23
25% of the chances75%

The board read VAN 1, EDM 3. The chances read VAN 2.1, EDM 6.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−3.2
goals above expected
EDM6.23 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.08 expected · 1 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
  1. P2 12:21EDMN. Philp0–1
  2. P2 19:09EDMA. Mangiapane0–2
  3. P3 00:47VANB. Boeser1–2
  4. P3 18:47EDML. DraisaitlEN1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
26 shots
1
Final
80 shots
EDM
54 shots
3
VAN attackEDM attack
VAN EDM Goal
26
shots · 1 in
54
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANEDM
1 / 4
1.01 xG
High danger
2 / 15
3.67 xG
0 / 7
0.62 xG
Medium
1 / 19
1.99 xG
0 / 30
0.45 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.57 xG

The Oilers buried 2 of 15 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
T. Demko
+4.2
VAN · 34/36
B+
C. Pickard
+1.1
EDM · 14/15
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 4–14no goals
    2ndshots 5–14
    1. 12:21EDMN. Philp(K. Kapanen, V. Podkolzin)0–1
    2. 19:09EDMA. Mangiapane0–2
    3rdshots 6–9
    1. 00:47VANB. Boeser(Q. Hughes, J. DeBrusk)1–2
    2. 18:47EDML. Draisaitlempty net(D. Nurse, C. McDavid)1–3

    score reads VAN–EDM

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    6.23
    EDM chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −3.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.019
    EDM puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    62.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.08Expected goals6.23
    EDM 75% of the chance quality
    15Shots on goal37
    4High-danger chances15
    41All attempts (Corsi)69
    Adjusted for score: VAN 40% · EDM 61%
    Faceoffs · EDM won59%off57%neu52%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VAN1 / 4 · 1.01 xG
    EDM2 / 15 · 3.67 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VAN0 / 7 · 0.62 xG
    EDM1 / 19 · 1.99 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VAN0 / 30 · 0.45 xG
    EDM0 / 35 · 0.57 xG

    EDM went 2-for-15 from high danger on 3.67 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VAN
    1 G · 2.08 xG · -1.1
    EDM
    3 G · 6.23 xG · -3.2
    01234567

    VAN finished -1.1 against expected, EDM -3.2.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VAN
    WRIST1/7
    SNAP0/13
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/4
    SLAP0/1
    TIP IN0/0
    OTHER0/15
    EDM
    WRIST0/32
    SNAP2/15
    BACKHAND1/4
    DEFLECTED0/0
    SLAP0/1
    TIP IN0/2
    OTHER0/15
    VAN
    EDM
    Off the rush
    0 G on 17
    1.58 xG
    2 G on 37
    4.85 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.21 xG
    0 G on 6
    0.85 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 1-for-7, EDM 0-for-32. EDM scored 2 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
    T. Demko
    VAN · 34/36 · .944
    +4.2
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/153.7+1.7
    Medium1/192.0+1.0
    Low0/350.6+0.6

    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

    C. Pickard
    EDM · 14/15 · .933
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/41.0+0.0
    Medium0/70.6+0.6
    Low0/300.5+0.5

    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

    80 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    VAN
    26 shots
    1
    Final
    80 shots
    EDM
    54 shots
    3
    VAN attackEDM attack
    VAN EDM Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, EDM 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
    Q. Hughes
    #43 · D · —
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 25:58 on ice · -1
    C. McDavid
    #97 · C · —
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:29 on ice · +1
    L. Draisaitl
    #29 · C · —
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 24:11 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Oct 11
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 1:56 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 the Oilers to win this game at 60% probability, favoring Edmonton in a 3.6–2.9 affair. That edge rests not on fluky shooting but on territory and shot quality—and both teams are due for a variance correction.

    Edmonton owns the underlying play decisively. The Oilers generate 52.2% of 5v5 expected goals to Vancouver's 44.0%, a gap suggesting sustained territorial control rather than a margin built on goaltending luck. Their Corsi sits at 50.2%, confirming they're pressing the play at both ends. The Canucks, by contrast, are being outworked: generating chances well below league average and pushed around in their own zone.

    Both teams are running cold relative to their true talent. Vancouver's PDO sits at 0.974 and Edmonton's at 0.981—meaning their goal-scoring and goaltending performance have underperformed what their underlying metrics suggest should happen. PDO regresses. When it does, the Canucks could improve outcomes without changing how they play. The Oilers face the opposite risk: more of their wins will have to come from actual dominance, because the luck portion normalizes.

    Zach Hyman is Edmonton's pressure point. He's carried 14 goals and 13 assists with a 1.23 xG/60 rate, translating to one high-danger goal—a blend of volume and quality that makes him the engine driving Edmonton's forecheck. Vancouver must neutralize him at the top of their lineup to avoid sustained pressure.

    Vancouver counters with Filip Chytil, who generates 1.03 xG/60 on just three goals and zero assists—a tell-tale sign of suppressed output masking real underlying talent. One high-danger goal on that volume suggests Chytil's 15.0% shooting rate is inflated and due for regression. Drew O'Connor rounds out Vancouver's offensive case: 13 goals and 11 assists at 0.85 xG/60 and 11.8% shooting, another player benefiting from inflated conversion.

    Connor McDavid represents Edmonton's wildcard: 25 goals and 33 assists, 0.92 xG/60, and five high-danger goals at 13.7% shooting. He's both prolific and underlying-sound, though even his volume leaves room for variance.

    The defensive matchup tilts toward Edmonton. Victor Mancini (Vancouver) and Jake Walman (Edmonton) both represent vulnerabilities, but neither team has generated meaningful secondary scoring from high-danger chances—both sit at 0% HD goal rate—so the battle for the blue line becomes less about transition opportunities and more about preventing established pressure in the attacking zone. Expect Edmonton's territorial edge to manifest as time spent in Vancouver's end.

    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

    EDM 60%
    60%
    EDM
    Model favorite
    40%
    60%
    VAN50EDM

    EDM by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.9–3.6 EDM; 15% 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
    VAN← edge
    edge →EDM
    44.0%52.2%
    46.9%50.2%
    2.783.38
    3.543.10
    2.563.44
    3.833.23
    0.9740.981

    EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 0.981) says EDM has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    VAN
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    EDM
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.981
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    TACTICALEDM

    Shutdown Assignment: Oilers

    Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Chytil (3G, 1.03 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Chytil (3G, 1.03 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    TACTICALVAN

    Shutdown Assignment: Canucks

    Key matchup: Neutralize Zach Hyman (14G, 1.23 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Zach Hyman (14G, 1.23 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    STRENGTHEDM

    Zach Hyman drives the Oilers offense

    Zach Hyman: 14G 13A, 1.23 xG/60, 1 high-danger goals.

    WARNINGVAN

    Exploitable minutes: Victor Mancini

    Victor Mancini is on ice for 3.25 xGA/60 and 15 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Victor Mancini's shifts with the top line.

    Where the edges live
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.2% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.2% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.2% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.2% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    VAN
    Filip Chytil3G 0A
    1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Drew O'Connor13G 11A
    0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
    EDM
    Zach Hyman14G 13A
    1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
    Connor McDavid25G 33A
    0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page