Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Thu, Oct 16 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at DAL

Canucks hold off the Stars

FinalThu, Oct 16
VANVancouver Canucks5DALDallas Stars3
The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.05–4.01 and won anyway.

VAN 5 · DAL 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:54 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

Dallas controlled 57% of expected goals at 5v5 and still lost. Vancouver's victory was a heist: better play, worse result.

Expected goals finished 4.01–3.05 in Dallas's favor (57–43%), yet the Canucks won 5-3. T. Demko stopped 1.01 goals above expected; C. DeSmith surrendered 1.95 more than his workload justified. Dallas couldn't convert high-danger chances—0 for 9. T. Demko was perfect on nine high-danger shots. Dallas scored twice from low-danger positions, inefficiency that usually goes straight into the back of the net.

Both teams were lethal off the rush. Dallas potted 3 goals on 30 chances; Vancouver answered with 4 on 27. The difference lay in precision: Vancouver overperformed their expected goals by 1.95 markers—elite finishing, lucky bounces, or both.

Dallas's power play was genuinely dominant (2 goals on 13 shots), but it wasn't enough. Q. Hughes's wrist shot from the top of the circles in the third period proved the decisive moment, and Vancouver weathered the rest.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 16
VAN
5
DAL
3

Canucks hold off the Stars

Chances 3.0 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
3.05
DAL
4.01
43% of the chances57%

The board read VAN 5, DAL 3. The chances read VAN 3.0, DAL 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+1.9
goals above expected
VAN3.05 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL4.01 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:29DALM. Bourque0–1
  2. P1 19:22DALM. RantanenPP0–2
  3. P2 06:40VANF. Chytil1–2
  4. P2 08:50VANB. BoeserPP2–2
  5. P2 10:06VANM. Sasson3–2
  6. P2 18:54VANC. Garland4–2
  7. P3 17:52DALW. JohnstonPP4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
40 shots
5
Final
86 shots
DAL
46 shots
3
VAN attackDAL attack
VAN DAL Goal
40
shots · 5 in
46
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANDAL
3 / 8
1.83 xG
High danger
0 / 9
2.05 xG
1 / 5
0.59 xG
Medium
1 / 10
1.13 xG
1 / 47
0.63 xG
Low
2 / 42
0.83 xG

The Stars went 0 for 9 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
T. Demko
+1.0
VAN · 28/31
F
C. DeSmith
−1.9
DAL · 21/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks hold off the Stars

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 6–14
  1. 04:29DALM. Bourque(T. Harley, R. Faksa)0–1
  2. 19:22DALM. Rantanenpower play(J. Robertson, R. Hintz)0–2
2ndshots 12–6
  1. 06:40VANF. Chytil(E. Kane, F. Hronek)1–2
  2. 08:50VANB. Boeserpower play(Q. Hughes, E. Pettersson)2–2
  3. 10:06VANM. Sasson(T. Myers)3–2
  4. 18:54VANC. Garland4–2
3rdshots 8–11
  1. 17:52DALW. Johnstonpower play(T. Seguin, J. Robertson)4–3
  2. 19:23VANQ. Hughespower play(C. Garland, F. Hronek)5–3

score reads VAN–DAL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.05
VAN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.034
VAN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.05Expected goals4.01
DAL 57% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal31
8High-danger chances9
60All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: VAN 48% · DAL 52%
Faceoffs · DAL won58%off57%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN3 / 8 · 1.83 xG
DAL0 / 9 · 2.05 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN1 / 5 · 0.59 xG
DAL1 / 10 · 1.13 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN1 / 47 · 0.63 xG
DAL2 / 42 · 0.83 xG

DAL went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.05 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
5 G · 3.05 xG · +1.9
DAL
3 G · 4.01 xG · -1.0
0123456

VAN finished +1.9 against expected, DAL -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
SNAP2/26
BACKHAND1/3
WRIST1/2
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/3
TIP IN1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/20
DAL
SNAP3/32
BACKHAND0/6
WRIST0/4
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
TIP IN0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/15
VAN
DAL
Off the rush
4 G on 27
2.44 xG
3 G on 30
2.49 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.24 xG
0 G on 6
1.08 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VAN went 2-for-26, DAL 3-for-32. VAN scored 4 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 · 28/31 · .903
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/92.0+2.0
Medium1/101.1+0.1
Low2/420.8-1.2

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

C. DeSmith
DAL · 21/26 · .808
-1.9
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/81.8-1.2
Medium1/50.6-0.4
Low1/470.6-0.4

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
40 shots
5
Final
86 shots
DAL
46 shots
3
VAN attackDAL attack
VAN DAL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, DAL 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 · —
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 25:21 on ice · +1
F. Hronek
#17 · D · —
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 23:27 on ice · +2
C. Garland
#8 · R · —
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:56 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:37 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 VAN 2.8 - 3.5 DAL game with the Stars at 60% win probability.

Keys to the game

  • Shutdown Assignment: Stars. Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Chytil (3G, 1.03 xG/60, 1 HD goals)
  • Shutdown Assignment: Canucks. Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Robertson (25G, 0.96 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
  • Filip Chytil drives the Canucks offense. Filip Chytil: 3G 0A, 1.03 xG/60, 1 high-danger goals.

Season 5v5 Numbers

MetricVANDAL
xG%44.0%52.1%
Corsi%46.9%47.1%
PDO0.9741.024

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

Where the Edges Live

  • The Stars own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.

Regression Watch

  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Players to Watch

VAN

  • Filip Chytil — 1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting
  • Drew O'Connor — 0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

DAL

  • Jason Robertson — 0.96 xG/60, 25G 21A, 2 HD goals, 12.4% shooting
  • Michael Bunting — 0.83 xG/60, 8G 14A, 7.6% shooting

Key Matchups

VAN

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Chytil (3G, 1.03 xG/60, 1 HD goals)
  • Watch Drew O'Connor (13G, 11.8% shooting)

DAL

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Robertson (25G, 0.96 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
  • Watch Michael Bunting (8G, 7.6% shooting)

Tactical Notes

  • VAN: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • VAN defensive weak link: Victor Mancini
  • DAL: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • DAL defensive weak link: Tyler Myers

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 60%
60%
DAL
Model favorite
40%
60%
VAN50DAL

DAL by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.8–3.5 DAL; 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
VAN← edge
edge →DAL
44.0%52.1%
46.9%47.1%
2.783.10
3.542.86
2.563.33
3.832.71
0.9741.024

DAL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 1.024) says DAL 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
DAL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.974
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.024
DAL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALDAL

Shutdown Assignment: Stars

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 Jason Robertson (25G, 0.96 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Robertson (25G, 0.96 xG/60, 2 HD 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.

WARNINGDAL

Exploitable minutes: Tyler Myers

Tyler Myers is on ice for 2.79 xGA/60 and 53 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Tyler Myers's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Stars own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Stars own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some 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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page