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

Oilers hold off the Canadiens

The verdict · coin flip

The Oilers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

MTL 5 · EDM 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:56 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 6-5, though expected goals favored Montreal (4.26 vs. 4.02). Edmonton's finish transcended its underlying play: the Oilers scored 1.98 goals above their xG while Montreal added just 0.74 above its own.

Edmonton held 52% of shot attempts (29-27 on goal) without translating that control into commanding metrics. High-danger chances went 9-6 Edmonton's way, a clearer edge in the areas that matter most. But Montreal had the better expected goals, which should have meant at least a tie.

Goaltending shifted the balance. S. Montembeault stopped 23 of 29 shots (0.793 SV%), falling nearly two goals short of expectation. C. Pickard, at 22 of 27 (0.815 SV%), also underperformed but by a smaller margin. Both goalies left wins on the table, but Montembeault left more.

The Oilers were lethal in transition, scoring 5 goals on 26 rush chances. Montreal converted 4 on 33 rush chances—fewer looks, similar efficiency. On the power play, Edmonton was dominant: 2 goals on 13 shots (1.79 xG).

Montreal's offense was clinical in high-danger situations, converting 3 of 6 chances (50%). Edmonton scored twice from low-danger areas—spots an opposing goalie should routinely stop. The teams combined for 15 high-danger chances, a bruising evening for both defenses.

Vasily Podkolzin's backhander from the doorstep in the third (18:51) was the defining moment, though the scoreboard concealed how close the underlying play truly was.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 23
MTL
5
EDM
6

Oilers hold off the Canadiens

Chances 4.3 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Oilers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
4.26
EDM
4.02
51% of the chances49%

The board read MTL 5, EDM 6. The chances read MTL 4.3, EDM 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+2.0
goals above expected
EDM4.02 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL4.26 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Oilers scored 2.0 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 07:28MTLA. Newhook1–0
  2. P1 16:12EDMD. Tomasek1–1
  3. P2 10:37EDMA. Henrique1–2
  4. P2 13:28EDMA. Mangiapane1–3
  5. P2 16:57MTLJ. Anderson2–3
  6. P2 18:00MTLC. Caufield3–3
  7. P2 18:49MTLC. Caufield4–3
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
43 shots
5
Final
87 shots
EDM
44 shots
6
MTL attackEDM attack
MTL EDM Goal
43
shots · 5 in
44
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLEDM
3 / 6
1.60 xG
High danger
3 / 9
2.16 xG
2 / 19
2.14 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.20 xG
0 / 37
0.52 xG
Low
2 / 40
0.66 xG

The Oilers buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
C. Pickard
−0.7
EDM · 22/27
F
S. Montembeault
−2.0
MTL · 23/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers hold off the Canadiens

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 12–6
  1. 07:28MTLA. Newhook(L. Hutson, O. Kapanen)1–0
  2. 16:12EDMD. Tomasek(V. Podkolzin, N. Philp)1–1
2ndshots 9–8
  1. 10:37EDMA. Henrique(J. Walman, M. Ekholm)1–2
  2. 13:28EDMA. Mangiapane(D. Nurse, C. McDavid)1–3
  3. 16:57MTLJ. Anderson(B. Gallagher, J. Evans)2–3
  4. 18:00MTLC. Caufield(N. Dobson, L. Hutson)3–3
  5. 18:49MTLC. Caufield(N. Suzuki, A. Carrier)4–3
3rdshots 6–15
  1. 02:10MTLA. Newhook(O. Kapanen, J. Struble)5–3
  2. 11:19EDML. Draisaitlpower play(C. McDavid, R. Nugent-Hopkins)5–4
  3. 12:17EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)5–5
  4. 18:51EDMV. Podkolzin(D. Nurse, J. Walman)5–6

score reads MTL–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.02
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.018
EDM puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
49.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.26Expected goals4.02
MTL 51% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal29
6High-danger chances9
62All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: MTL 50% · EDM 50%
Faceoffs · EDM won79%off71%neu42%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL3 / 6 · 1.60 xG
EDM3 / 9 · 2.16 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL2 / 19 · 2.14 xG
EDM1 / 12 · 1.20 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL0 / 37 · 0.52 xG
EDM2 / 40 · 0.66 xG

MTL went 3-for-6 from high danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
5 G · 4.26 xG · +0.7
EDM
6 G · 4.02 xG · +2.0
01234567

MTL finished +0.7 against expected, EDM +2.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
SNAP3/24
WRIST2/9
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/19
EDM
SNAP2/8
WRIST0/18
SLAP1/9
BACKHAND2/6
DEFLECTED0/2
TIP IN1/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/17
MTL
EDM
Off the rush
4 G on 33
3.32 xG
5 G on 26
2.37 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.69 xG
1 G on 6
1.09 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: MTL went 3-for-24, EDM 2-for-8. EDM 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
S. Montembeault
MTL · 23/29 · .793
-2.0
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/92.2-0.8
Medium1/121.2+0.2
Low2/400.7-1.3

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. Pickard
EDM · 22/27 · .815
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.6-1.4
Medium2/192.1+0.1
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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
43 shots
5
Final
87 shots
EDM
44 shots
6
MTL attackEDM attack
MTL EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, EDM 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. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 22:35 on ice
L. Hutson
#48 · D · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 21:02 on ice
J. Walman
#96 · D · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:51 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:54 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 Edmonton by 55% win probability in a projected 2.4–2.8 scoreline. That edge comes from one place: the Oilers' superior underlying play.

Edmonton dominates the expected-goals battle at 5v5: 52.0% to Montreal's 48.0%. The possession gap is smaller—Corsi sits at 50.0% for Edmonton versus 49.0% for Montreal—which means the Oilers are converting their possessions into higher-quality chances. That's the signature of a team ahead of its underlying metrics.

The regression angle is where the value lives. Edmonton's PDO (0.982) has been running cold, below the team's expected performance, due for positive movement. Montreal's PDO (1.018) has banked more than its share—hot shooting and bounces have masked what is, by the numbers, ordinary play. When PDO normalizes, the gap between these teams will widen.

Players to Watch

Montreal's Cole Caufield carries 33 goals on a 20.0% shooting rate, generating 0.97 xG/60, with 1 high-danger goal to his name. Oliver Kapanen sits at 19 goals with a hotter 17.8% clip, producing 4 high-danger goals on 0.83 xG/60—he's been more efficient than shot quality alone would predict.

For Edmonton, Zach Hyman's 1.23 xG/60 leads the forwards and he's buried 14 goals on a 13.0% rate with 1 high-danger goal. Connor McDavid's 25 goals and 33 assists on 0.92 xG/60 reflect both primary skill and the volume edge Edmonton maintains, backed by 5 high-danger goals that show he's converting difficult chances at an elite rate.

Montreal's defense (Mike Matheson) isn't a strength. Edmonton's stated weak link is Jake Walman. The model's lean is sound: Edmonton plays better, shoots closer to expectation, and should win more than half.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 55%
55%
EDM
Model favorite
45%
55%
MTL50EDM

EDM by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.4–2.8 EDM; 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
MTL← edge
edge →EDM
48.0%52.0%
49.0%50.0%
2.412.64
2.622.47
2.242.13
1.962.29
1.0180.982

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.982) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MTL
7-3-0
+10 GD · 3d rest
EDM
4-4-2
-4 GD · 2d rest
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
3 days rest.938 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
2 days rest.905 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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
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
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
Keep going

Where to next