Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
Breakdown · VAN at WSH

Canucks steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.06–5.40 and won anyway.

VAN 4 · WSH 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:27 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

The Canucks won a game they had no business winning. Vancouver took a 4–3 victory from Washington despite losing the expected-goals battle 5.40–3.06—a 64–36 split so lopsided it made the final score look like an arithmetic error.

The Capitals' dominance was comprehensive. They won 31 shot attempts to 24, generated nine high-danger chances to three, and held 56% of shot volume. Their power play was surgical: two goals on 23 shots (1.90 xG). On paper, Washington controlled this game completely.

T. Demko broke the script. The Vancouver goalie made 28 saves on 31 shots (0.903 SV%), finishing +2.40 against expected goals—meaning he stopped 2.4 more goals than the Capitals should have scored. C. Lindgren, Washington's starter, cut the other direction: 20 saves on 24 shots (0.833 SV%), sitting –0.94, a performance that handed the Canucks the margin.

Vancouver's winning came from two edges. The Canucks exploited the rush ruthlessly, scoring two goals from 22 chances. The Capitals created more rebound opportunities (eight) than Vancouver (seven), but converted just one to Vancouver's two. The goaltending mismatch decided it.

John Carlson's snap shot from the point at 17:46 of the third was Washington's best chance, though it proved immaterial.

The Three Stars:

  • T. Myers (VAN, #57): 1G, 1A in 26:12
  • C. Garland (VAN, #8): 2A in 22:20
  • T. Wilson (WSH, #43): 2A in 20:57
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 19
VAN
4
WSH
3

Canucks steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

Chances 3.1 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Capitals deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
3.06
WSH
5.40
36% of the chances64%

The board read VAN 4, WSH 3. The chances read VAN 3.1, WSH 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+0.9
goals above expected
VAN3.06 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
WSH5.40 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Capitals left 2.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:59VANE. Pettersson1–0
  2. P1 17:11VANT. Myers2–0
  3. P1 17:52VANK. SherwoodPP3–0
  4. P2 04:54VANT. Blueger4–0
  5. P2 13:42WSHR. LeonardPP4–1
  6. P3 09:01WSHJ. Chychrun4–2
  7. P3 17:46WSHJ. CarlsonPP4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
35 shots
4
Final
95 shots
WSH
60 shots
3
VAN attackWSH attack
VAN WSH Goal
35
shots · 4 in
60
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANWSH
1 / 3
0.68 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.24 xG
3 / 16
1.95 xG
Medium
1 / 22
2.36 xG
0 / 18
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 53
0.80 xG

High-danger looks: VAN 1 of 3, WSH 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
T. Demko
+2.4
VAN · 28/31
D-
C. Lindgren
−0.9
WSH · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

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 12–7
  1. 00:59VANE. Pettersson(C. Garland)1–0
  2. 17:11VANT. Myers2–0
  3. 17:52VANK. Sherwoodpower play(C. Garland, Q. Hughes)3–0
2ndshots 7–12
  1. 04:54VANT. Blueger(E. Kane, T. Myers)4–0
  2. 13:42WSHR. Leonardpower play(T. Wilson, D. Strome)4–1
3rdshots 5–12
  1. 09:01WSHJ. Chychrun(H. Lapierre, R. Sandin)4–2
  2. 17:46WSHJ. Carlsonpower play(D. Strome, T. Wilson)4–3

score reads VAN–WSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.06
VAN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.072
VAN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
30.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.06Expected goals5.40
WSH 64% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal31
3High-danger chances9
37All attempts (Corsi)84
Adjusted for score: VAN 25% · WSH 75%
Faceoffs · WSH won63%off59%neu40%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN1 / 3 · 0.68 xG
WSH1 / 9 · 2.24 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN3 / 16 · 1.95 xG
WSH1 / 22 · 2.36 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 18 · 0.43 xG
WSH1 / 53 · 0.80 xG

WSH went 1-for-22 from medium danger on 2.36 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
4 G · 3.06 xG · +0.9
WSH
3 G · 5.40 xG · -2.4
0123456

VAN finished +0.9 against expected, WSH -2.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
SNAP2/10
WRIST2/7
SLAP0/8
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/6
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/2
WSH
SNAP3/34
WRIST0/11
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/24
VAN
WSH
Off the rush
2 G on 22
1.88 xG
1 G on 36
3.86 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 7
1.04 xG
1 G on 8
0.69 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VAN went 2-for-10, WSH 3-for-34. VAN 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 · 28/31 · .903
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/92.2+1.2
Medium1/222.4+1.4
Low1/530.8-0.2

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

C. Lindgren
WSH · 20/24 · .833
-0.9
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.7-0.3
Medium3/161.9-1.1
Low0/180.4+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

95 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
35 shots
4
Final
95 shots
WSH
60 shots
3
VAN attackWSH attack
VAN WSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, WSH 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
T. Myers
#57 · D · VAN
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:12 on ice · +1
C. Garland
#8 · R · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 22:20 on ice · +1
T. Wilson
#43 · R · WSH
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:57 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Oct 19
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:04 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 projects Washington at 57% to win, targeting a 2.4–2.9 goal scoresheet. That edge rests on underlying play: Washington dominates shot quality with 50.0% 5v5 expected goals against Vancouver's 44.0%. Corsi% tells the same story (49.0% for Washington, 46.0% for Vancouver).

But Washington is running unsustainably hot. Its 1.018 PDO—the all-in measure of puck luck—will regress. Vancouver, sitting at 0.974, is underperforming its chances and faces positive regression in the other direction. The model's edge, grounded in shot quality, narrows once luck normalizes.

Goaltending adds uncertainty. K. Lankinen faces a back-to-back. Whether Washington deploys a backup or runs its starter on fumes is unknowable until puck drop, but fatigue becomes a variable the model cannot forecast.

Filip Chytil is Vancouver's most dangerous weapon. At 1.03 xG/60, he generates at an elite rate, converted 3 goals on 15.0% shooting—room for regression, but a threat tonight. Linus Karlsson (0.95 xG/60, 13G 16A, 14.1% shooting) spreads that load, steady and efficient. Victor Mancini profiles as Vancouver's defensive vulnerability.

Washington counters with Alex Ovechkin at 0.97 xG/60, posting 19 goals and 17 assists on 13.8% shooting. Not Chytil-hot, but elite volume and deployment move the needle. Anthony Beauvillier (0.89 xG/60, 14G 9A, 10.4% shooting) adds secondary punch. Declan Chisholm represents Washington's defensive liability.

Neither team has generated high-danger goals or rebounds at meaningful rates—both register 0% for those buckets—so the advantage concentrates on baseline shot generation and which goaltender stays fresher.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WSH 57%
57%
WSH
Model favorite
43%
57%
VAN50WSH

WSH by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.4–2.9 WSH; 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
VAN← edge
edge →WSH
44.0%50.0%
46.0%49.0%
2.222.62
2.812.62
1.602.18
2.561.79
0.9741.018

WSH holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 1.018) says WSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
VAN
7-3-0
+13 GD · 1d rest
WSH
8-2-0
+11 GD · 2d rest
0.974
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
WSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • WSH owns the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
Regression watch
  • WSH PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • VAN PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • WSH owns the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • WSH PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
back-to-back.939 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

WSH
Expected in goal
L. Thompson
2 days rest.929 last start
Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 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
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Linus Karlsson13G 16A
0.95 xG/60 · 2 HD · 14.1% sh
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% sh
Keep going

Where to next