Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
Breakdown · EDM at OTT

Oilers edge the Senators in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 3 · OTT 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:31 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 Oilers won 3-2, but the underlying play was far more decisive: they controlled 58% of expected goals (2.63–1.90) and generated significantly higher-quality chances at 0.060 xG per shot, compared to Ottawa's 0.040.

The Senators pressed for recovery chances, creating three rebound opportunities without converting. Edmonton's power play was the game's most dominant facet: two goals on seven power-play shots, generating 0.73 xG.

High-danger chances finished 2-2, an even split that masked the xG differential beneath. Skinner (19 of 21 saves, 0.905 SV%) was notably more efficient than Ullmark (22 of 25, 0.880 SV%), the kind of marginal edge that carries weight in close games.

Jake Walman's slap shot from the top of the circles at 2:24 of overtime delivered the result — a moment where Edmonton's underlying superiority finally crystallized.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 21
EDM
3
OTT
2

Oilers edge the Senators in overtime

Chances 2.6 – 1.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
2.63
OTT
1.90
58% of the chances42%

The board read EDM 3, OTT 2. The chances read EDM 2.6, OTT 1.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+0.4
goals above expected
EDM2.63 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT1.90 expected · 2 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. P1 16:31EDMC. McDavidPP1–0
  2. P2 00:49EDMI. Howard2–0
  3. P3 00:13OTTD. CozensPP2–1
  4. P3 01:49OTTT. Chabot2–2
  5. OT 02:24EDMJ. WalmanPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
34 shots
3
Final
65 shots
OTT
31 shots
2
EDM attackOTT attack
EDM OTT Goal
34
shots · 3 in
31
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMOTT
1 / 2
0.42 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.42 xG
2 / 16
1.78 xG
Medium
1 / 10
1.02 xG
0 / 26
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.46 xG

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

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
S. Skinner
−0.1
EDM · 19/21
D
L. Ullmark
−0.4
OTT · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers edge the Senators 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 6–6
  1. 16:31EDMC. McDavidpower play(R. Nugent-Hopkins, E. Bouchard)1–0
2ndshots 6–11
  1. 00:49EDMI. Howard(L. Draisaitl)2–0
3rdshots 10–4
  1. 00:13OTTD. Cozenspower play(D. Batherson, T. Stützle)2–1
  2. 01:49OTTT. Chabot(D. Perron)2–2
OTshots 3–0
  1. 02:24EDMJ. Walmanpower play(M. Ekholm, M. Savoie)3–2

score reads EDM–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.63
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.026
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.63Expected goals1.90
EDM 58% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal21
2High-danger chances2
44All attempts (Corsi)48
Adjusted for score: EDM 45% · OTT 55%
Faceoffs · OTT won64%off56%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM1 / 2 · 0.42 xG
OTT0 / 2 · 0.42 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM2 / 16 · 1.78 xG
OTT1 / 10 · 1.02 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM0 / 26 · 0.43 xG
OTT1 / 36 · 0.46 xG

EDM went 1-for-2 from high danger on 0.42 expected goals — 0.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
3 G · 2.63 xG · +0.4
OTT
2 G · 1.90 xG · +0.1
01234

EDM finished +0.4 against expected, OTT +0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST1/16
SNAP1/5
SLAP1/5
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/3
OTHER0/10
OTT
WRIST1/21
SNAP0/3
SLAP1/3
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/2
OTHER0/17
EDM
OTT
Off the rush
1 G on 21
1.69 xG
1 G on 20
1.36 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.17 xG
0 G on 3
0.39 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 1-for-16, OTT 1-for-21.

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
S. Skinner
EDM · 19/21 · .905
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium1/101.0+0.0
Low1/360.5-0.5

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

L. Ullmark
OTT · 22/25 · .880
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.4-0.6
Medium2/161.8-0.2
Low0/260.4+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

65 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
34 shots
3
Final
65 shots
OTT
31 shots
2
EDM attackOTT attack
EDM OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, OTT 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. Chabot
#72 · D · OTT
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 25:22 on ice · +1
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:09 on ice · +1
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:13 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:30 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 favors Ottawa in this matchup. It projects a 2.4-2.7 goal range and gives the Senators 56% win probability—a margin that reflects Edmonton's precarious position. The Oilers are running on fumes; their PDO of 0.982 is well below neutral, and regression is due.

The underlying play validates the model's read. Ottawa owns 56.0% expected goals at 5v5 to Edmonton's 52.0%, a meaningful gap that compounds over 60 minutes. The Senators also lead in Corsi at 53.0%, meaning they'll control territory and dictate pace. Edmonton's 50.0% Corsi tells the story of a team being outworked.

Form concerns cut both ways. The Senators have struggled recently—they're minus-17 in goal differential over their last 10 games—but that's a noise metric. The model isn't fooled by short-term results; it sees the mechanics underneath. Edmonton's problem is worse: a shooting percentage that's dried up creates the illusion of a cold streak. PDO regression isn't a guarantee, but it's the surest thing in hockey. The Oilers will regress toward league average.

Where does Edmonton find a path? Connor McDavid remains the highest-leverage player on either roster. He's posting 0.92 expected goals per 60 at 5v5 with a 13.7% shooting rate, and his 33 assists anchor the offense. But McDavid alone cannot overcome structural disadvantage. Zach Hyman (1.23 xG/60, 14 goals, 13 assists) carries more shot volume than his competition, yet he too is operating in an Oilers system that's being outchanced.

Brady Tkachuk is Ottawa's answer in shot quality and volume—1.19 xG/60 is elite—and he's already 11 goals deep. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13 goals) provides secondary threat weight. Both skew toward a Senators team generating the better opportunities.

The trap for the model is tactical: Edmonton might neutralize Tkachuk or exploit a defensive gap (Nick Jensen is a known weak link for Ottawa). Edmonton's own weakness on the back end—Jake Walman—presents a counter-risk. Neither team is generating high-danger goals at an exceptional clip, which means execution becomes more volatile than underlying metrics suggest.

Still, the model has it right. Ottawa's shot generation and territorial control form a floor, and Edmonton's PDO regression forms a ceiling. The Senators should win this one more often than not.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 56%
55%
OTT
Model favorite
45%
55%
EDM50OTT

OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 2.4–2.7 OTT; 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 →OTT
52.0%56.0%
50.0%53.0%
2.642.66
2.472.12
2.132.18
2.291.99
0.9820.993

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
EDM
4-4-2
-1 GD · 2d rest
OTT
4-6-0
-17 GD · 3d rest
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Senators are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — 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.

OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
3 days rest.783 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next