Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
Breakdown · EDM at NJD

Devils run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 3 · NJD 5
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:01 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

New Jersey didn't just win the shot battle—they won the quality one. The Devils controlled 63% of 5v5 expected goals, 4.17 to 2.44, yet the scoreboard showed only a 5–3 final. The underlying dominance was that lopsided because they squeezed far more danger from fewer chances.

NJD generated 0.082 expected goals per shot while Edmonton managed just 0.043. That efficiency gap explains how the Devils outshot their xG by 0.83 goals while J. Allen in net played near-perfect, posting a 0.900 save percentage—even after accounting for shot quality, he beat his expected save line by 0.56 goals.

The Devils' edge was clearest in high-danger areas, where they held a 6–2 advantage. Despite controlling only 43% of shot attempts (23 to 30), New Jersey bent the entire game to their will. Edmonton had better shooting volume but couldn't sustain offensive pressure against a Devils defense that prioritized threat elimination over keeping the puck.

The turning point arrived in the third period when Curtis Lazar fired a wrist shot from the high slot at 19:57, a moment that crystallized the game's larger story: the team controlling play got the result.

C. Pickard (18 saves on 22 shots, 0.818 SV%) kept Edmonton within striking distance despite the onslaught. On the other side, J. Allen's dominance and the Devils' relentless attack overwhelmed the Oilers' counter-punch attempts. Both teams scored three rushing goals, an unusual symmetry that suggests Edmonton's offensive weapons remained dangerous even in defeat—C. McDavid finished with two assists in 22:25, showcasing his impact regardless of the final margin.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 18
EDM
3
NJD
5

Devils run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.4 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
2.44
NJD
4.17
37% of the chances63%

The board read EDM 3, NJD 5. The chances read EDM 2.4, NJD 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
+0.8
goals above expected
NJD4.17 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM2.44 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
  1. P2 08:07NJDJ. Hughes0–1
  2. P2 16:02NJDJ. BrattPP0–2
  3. P2 18:16EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins1–2
  4. P3 10:37NJDC. BrownSH1–3
  5. P3 12:33NJDJ. Hughes1–4
  6. P3 16:30EDMR. Nugent-HopkinsPP2–4
  7. P3 18:53NJDD. MercerEN2–5
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
40 shots
3
Final
77 shots
NJD
37 shots
5
EDM attackNJD attack
EDM NJD Goal
40
shots · 3 in
37
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMNJD
0 / 2
0.46 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.94 xG
2 / 12
1.38 xG
Medium
3 / 16
1.81 xG
1 / 43
0.60 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.42 xG

High-danger looks: EDM 0 of 2, NJD 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
C. Pickard
+0.2
EDM · 18/22
D
J. Allen
−0.6
NJD · 27/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Devils run the Oilers 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 9–4no goals
    2ndshots 13–14
    1. 08:07NJDJ. Hughes(B. Pesce)0–1
    2. 16:02NJDJ. Brattpower play(J. Hughes, N. Hischier)0–2
    3. 18:16EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins(C. McDavid, J. Roslovic)1–2
    3rdshots 8–5
    1. 10:37NJDC. Brownshorthanded(L. Glendening)1–3
    2. 12:33NJDJ. Hughes(J. Bratt)1–4
    3. 16:30EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(C. McDavid, D. Nurse)2–4
    4. 18:53NJDD. Mercerempty net(N. Hischier)2–5
    5. 19:57EDMC. Lazar(A. Henrique, T. Emberson)3–5

    score reads EDM–NJD

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.17
    NJD chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.8
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.045
    NJD puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    47.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.44Expected goals4.17
    NJD 63% of the chance quality
    30Shots on goal23
    2High-danger chances6
    57All attempts (Corsi)51
    Adjusted for score: EDM 56% · NJD 44%
    Faceoffs · NJD won44%off35%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    EDM0 / 2 · 0.46 xG
    NJD1 / 6 · 1.94 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    EDM2 / 12 · 1.38 xG
    NJD3 / 16 · 1.81 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    EDM1 / 43 · 0.60 xG
    NJD1 / 29 · 0.42 xG

    NJD went 3-for-16 from medium danger on 1.81 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    EDM
    3 G · 2.44 xG · +0.6
    NJD
    5 G · 4.17 xG · +0.8
    0123456

    EDM finished +0.6 against expected, NJD +0.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    EDM
    WRIST3/17
    SNAP0/9
    BACKHAND0/5
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/4
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/17
    NJD
    WRIST4/20
    SNAP0/6
    BACKHAND1/4
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/14
    EDM
    NJD
    Off the rush
    3 G on 26
    1.87 xG
    3 G on 25
    2.98 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.39 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.13 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 3-for-17, NJD 4-for-20. EDM 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
    C. Pickard
    EDM · 18/22 · .818
    +0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.9+0.9
    Medium3/161.8-1.2
    Low1/290.4-0.6

    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

    J. Allen
    NJD · 27/30 · .900
    -0.6
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.5+0.5
    Medium2/121.4-0.6
    Low1/430.6-0.4

    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

    77 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    EDM
    40 shots
    3
    Final
    77 shots
    NJD
    37 shots
    5
    EDM attackNJD attack
    EDM NJD Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, NJD 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. Hughes
    #86 · C · NJD
    2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:17 on ice · +1
    C. McDavid
    #97 · C · EDM
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:25 on ice · -1
    N. Hischier
    #13 · C · NJD
    0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 21:03 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Oct 18
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:59 PMEdited 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 can't pick a winner: it projects a 2.6–2.6 game with the Devils at exactly 50% win probability.

    This is a genuine toss-up rooted in contradictory evidence. The Oilers own the quality metric—52.0% expected goals percentage—meaning they create harder chances to stop. The Devils own everything else: 51.0% Corsi percentage and 50.0% xG%, which measures shots on net. Oilers generate better opportunities; Devils control the puck more often.

    Both teams are running cold. The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 and the Devils' is 0.971, meaning both underperform the chances they're given—a pattern that doesn't persist. Positive regression is coming for each.

    The Oilers' offense runs through Connor Clattenburg and Zach Hyman. Clattenburg generates 1.47 expected goals per 60 minutes on just 1 goal and 0 assists, with 1 hard-danger goal. His 33.3% shooting is unsustainably high. Hyman has collected 14 goals and 13 assists at 1.23 xG/60, converting at 13.0%, also inflated by variance. He has 1 hard-danger goal as well.

    The Devils counter with Timo Meier and Jack Hughes. Meier generates 1.08 xG/60 while recording 13 goals, 15 assists, and 3 hard-danger goals at 6.7% shooting—underconverting despite his volume. Hughes leads with 18 goals and 17 assists despite a 0.88 xG/60 rate, converting at 11.5% with 1 hard-danger goal. He significantly outperforms his underlying chances.

    A structural weakness undermines both offenses: each records a 0% rate on hard-danger goals and 0% on rebounds. Neither team capitalizes efficiently in tight space, a vulnerability either can exploit.

    Defensively, the Devils' liability is Johnathan Kovacevic; the Oilers' is Jake Walman.

    The prediction hinges on timing. Clattenburg and Hyman cannot sustain their shooting percentages. Hughes may not sustain his. Both teams' cold PDO will warm. The question is which regression hits first. In a game where the models yield a perfect split, execution determines the outcome.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    NJD 50%
    50%
    NJD
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    EDM50NJD

    NJD by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.6 NJD; 18% 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
    EDM← edge
    edge →NJD
    52.0%50.0%
    50.0%51.0%
    2.642.45
    2.472.50
    2.131.66
    2.292.23
    0.9820.971

    EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.971) says EDM has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    EDM
    5-3-2
    +1 GD · 2d rest
    NJD
    6-2-2
    +6 GD · 2d rest
    0.982
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.971
    NJD PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • NJD PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • EDM PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • NJD PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    EDM
    Expected in goal
    S. Skinner
    2 days rest.875 last start
    Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    NJD
    Expected in goal
    J. Allen
    2 days rest.955 last start
    Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    EDM
    Connor Clattenburg1G 0A
    1.47 xG/60 · 1 HD · 33.3% sh
    Zach Hyman14G 13A
    1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
    NJD
    Timo Meier13G 15A
    1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
    Jack Hughes18G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next