Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater

Breakdown · SEA at MTL

Canadiens edge the Kraken in overtime

Final / OTTue, Oct 14

SEASeattle Kraken4 MTLMontreal Canadiens5

The verdict · earned

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

SEA 4 · MTL 5

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:41 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

Montreal's dominance was evident in quality, not quantity: they matched Seattle's 22 shots on goal but generated 56% of the expected goals through superior efficiency. MTL's chances averaged 0.051 expected goals per shot versus Seattle's 0.038 — a decisive quality gap. High-danger opportunities reinforced the split: Montreal 4, Seattle 2.

Yet both teams significantly outperformed their underlying metrics. MTL converted 5 goals from 2.78 expected goals (a 2.22-goal surplus), while Seattle scored 4 from 2.17 (1.83 surplus). The game's variance indicated both offenses ran hot. J. Daccord allowed 2.22 goals beyond expectation; S. Montembeault underperformed by 1.83.

Montreal's rush-play efficiency separated the teams more decisively than the one-goal overtime margin. The Canadiens converted 5 goals on 26 rush chances; Seattle scored 3 on 22.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Oct 14

SEA

MTL

Canadiens edge the Kraken in overtime

Chances 2.2 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

2.17

MTL

2.78

44% of the chances56%

The board read SEA 4, MTL 5. The chances read SEA 2.2, MTL 2.8.

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

Luck check

MTL

+2.2

goals above expected

MTL2.78 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

SEA2.17 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Canadiens scored 2.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 04:37MTLA. Newhook0–1
P2 03:33SEAJ. SchwartzPP1–1
P2 07:12MTLC. Caufield1–2
P2 17:52SEAJ. Nyman2–2
P3 01:12MTLK. Dach2–3
P3 04:48SEAJ. Oleksiak3–3
P3 07:56SEAJ. McCann4–3

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

SEA

33 shots

Final

68 shots

MTL

35 shots

SEA MTL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEAMTL

1 / 2

0.43 xG

High danger

1 / 4

0.89 xG

2 / 10

1.17 xG

Medium

4 / 13

1.34 xG

1 / 45

0.57 xG

Low

0 / 37

0.54 xG

High-danger looks: SEA 1 of 2, MTL 1 of 4.

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

In the net

S. Montembeault

−1.8

MTL · 18/22

J. Daccord

−2.2

SEA · 17/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Canadiens edge the Kraken 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 4–4

04:37MTLA. Newhook(I. Demidov, A. Carrier)0–1

2ndshots 12–11

03:33SEAJ. Schwartzpower play(S. Wright, V. Dunn)1–1
07:12MTLC. Caufield1–2
17:52SEAJ. Nyman(T. Kartye, F. Gaudreau)2–2

3rdshots 6–6

01:12MTLK. Dach(N. Dobson, M. Matheson)2–3
04:48SEAJ. Oleksiak(J. McCann, J. Mahura)3–3
07:56SEAJ. McCann(B. Montour, R. Lindgren)4–3
17:19MTLI. Demidov(P. Laine, B. Gallagher)4–4

OTshots 0–1

03:25MTLC. Caufield(L. Hutson, N. Suzuki)4–5

score reads SEA–MTL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.78

MTL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.022

MTL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

48.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.17Expected goals2.78

MTL 56% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal22

2High-danger chances4

57All attempts (Corsi)54

Adjusted for score: SEA 53% · MTL 47%

Faceoffs · MTL won58%off52%neu60%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA1 / 2 · 0.43 xG

MTL1 / 4 · 0.89 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA2 / 10 · 1.17 xG

MTL4 / 13 · 1.34 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA1 / 45 · 0.57 xG

MTL0 / 37 · 0.54 xG

MTL went 4-for-13 from medium danger on 1.34 expected goals — 2.7 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

4 G · 2.17 xG · +1.8

MTL

5 G · 2.78 xG · +2.2

0123456

SEA finished +1.8 against expected, MTL +2.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

SNAP2/20

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/2

WRIST1/3

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED1/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/24

MTL

SNAP2/19

SLAP0/4

TIP IN1/6

WRIST0/2

BACKHAND1/1

DEFLECTED1/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/19

SEA

MTL

Off the rush

3 G on 22

1.87 xG

5 G on 26

2.39 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 1

0.22 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 2-for-20, MTL 2-for-19. MTL scored 5 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

J. Daccord

SEA · 17/22 · .773

-2.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium4/131.3-2.7

Low0/370.5+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

S. Montembeault

MTL · 18/22 · .818

-1.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.4-0.6

Medium2/101.2-0.8

Low1/450.6-0.4

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

68 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SEA

33 shots

Final

68 shots

MTL

35 shots

SEA MTL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA left, MTL 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

C. Caufield

#13 · R · —

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 17:43 on ice · +2

J. McCann

#19 · L · —

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:50 on ice

I. Demidov

#93 · R · —

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 14:43 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 14

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:27 AMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model projects a SEA 3.0 - 3.5 MTL game with the Canadiens at 56% win probability.

Keys to the game

Shutdown Assignment: Canadiens. Key matchup: Neutralize Shane Wright (8G, 0.77 xG/60, 4 HD goals)
Shutdown Assignment: Kraken. Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)
Exploitable minutes: Chandler Stephenson. Chandler Stephenson is on ice for 3.05 xGA/60 and 52 high-danger shots against this season.

Season 5v5 Numbers

Metric	SEA	MTL
xG%	45.7%	49.7%
Corsi%	46.0%	48.2%
PDO	1.011	1.019

Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

Where the Edges Live

The Canadiens own the underlying play — 49.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.7%.

Regression Watch

The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Players to Watch

SEA

Shane Wright — 0.77 xG/60, 8G 10A, 4 HD goals, 10.4% shooting
Berkly Catton — 0.68 xG/60, 6G 8A, 5 HD goals, 8.8% shooting

MTL

Cole Caufield — 0.97 xG/60, 33G 16A, 1 HD goals, 20.0% shooting
Oliver Kapanen — 0.83 xG/60, 19G 12A, 4 HD goals, 17.8% shooting

Key Matchups

SEA

Key matchup: Neutralize Shane Wright (8G, 0.77 xG/60, 4 HD goals)
Watch Berkly Catton (6G, 8.8% shooting)

MTL

Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)
Watch Oliver Kapanen (19G, 17.8% shooting)

Tactical Notes

SEA: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
SEA defensive weak link: Chandler Stephenson
MTL: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
MTL defensive weak link: Mike Matheson

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MTL 56%

56%

MTL

Model favorite

44%

56%

SEA50MTL

MTL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 3.0–3.5 MTL; 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

SEA← edge

edge →MTL

45.7%49.7%

46.0%48.2%

2.783.28

3.293.32

2.733.40

3.133.06

1.0111.019

MTL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 1.019) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

SEA

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

MTL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.011

SEA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.019

MTL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALMTL

Shutdown Assignment: Canadiens

Key matchup: Neutralize Shane Wright (8G, 0.77 xG/60, 4 HD goals)

TACTICALSEA

Shutdown Assignment: Kraken

Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

WARNINGSEA

Exploitable minutes: Chandler Stephenson

Chandler Stephenson is on ice for 3.05 xGA/60 and 52 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Chandler Stephenson's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGMTL

Exploitable minutes: Mike Matheson

Mike Matheson is on ice for 2.90 xGA/60 and 78 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Mike Matheson's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Canadiens own the underlying play — 49.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.7%.

Regression watch

The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Canadiens own the underlying play — 49.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.7%.
The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

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

MTL

Cole Caufield33G 16A

0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh

Oliver Kapanen19G 12A

0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page