Backcheck
Recap · SJS at NJD

Devils run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 11, 12:59 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
SJS
San Jose Sharks
1
Home
NJD
New Jersey Devils
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.49Expected goals5.07
67% share for the better side
17Shot attempts (SOG)29
4High-danger chances7
45Corsi (all attempts)70
Score-adjusted: 41% / 59%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Devils beat the Sharks 3-1, and it wasn't close on the underlying numbers — they controlled 67% of 5v5 expected goals (5.07–2.49) and 63% of shot attempts (29–17).

New Jersey's dominance showed in the quality of chances: 7 high-danger opportunities to San Jose's 4, and 0.072 expected goals per shot versus 0.055. The Devils were lethal on the rush, scoring 2 goals on 31 such chances, and their power play was a weapon — 2 goals on 27 shots (2.38 xG).

The Devils underperformed their expected goals by 2.07, suggesting they wasted some of that quality. Y. Askarov (SJS) saved 3.1 goals above expected, and J. Allen (NJD) saved 1.49, but Askarov was the difference-maker given the gap in quality between the teams' chances.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS0 / 4 · 0.95 xG
NJD2 / 7 · 2.31 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS1 / 9 · 1.04 xG
NJD1 / 19 · 2.17 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS0 / 32 · 0.50 xG
NJD0 / 44 · 0.59 xG

NJD went 1-for-19 from medium danger on 2.17 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
1 G · 2.49 xG · -1.5
NJD
3 G · 5.07 xG · -2.1
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
Y. AskarovSJS
+3.1
J. AllenNJD
+1.5

SJS finished -1.5 against expected, NJD -2.1 — Y. Askarov (SJS) saved 3.1 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
WRIST0/8
SLAP0/6
SNAP1/7
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/19
NJD
WRIST1/20
SLAP1/11
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/6
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/24
SJS
NJD
Off the rush
1 G on 20 · 1.96 xG
2 G on 31 · 3.90 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.25 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.44 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 0-for-8, NJD 1-for-20. NJD scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
D. Hamilton
#7 · D · NJD
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 25:51 TOI · +1
N. Hischier
#13 · C · NJD
0 G · 3 A · 5 SOG · 22:03 TOI · +1
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:07 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • Y. Askarov (SJS) stopped 3.1 goals above expected.
  • NJD generated far more dangerous chances — 0.072 xG/shot vs 0.055. Quality over quantity.
  • NJD was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 31 rush chances.
  • NJD created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • NJD underperformed xG by 2.1 — wasted quality chances.
  • Y. Askarov (SJS) saved 3.1 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • NJD power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 27 PP shots (2.38 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · SJS at NJD · 7:00 PM ET

Sharks at Devils: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 12:57 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

54%
NJD
Model favorite
46%
54%
SJS50NJD

NJD by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.42.6 NJD; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

SJS← edge
edge →NJD
48.0%5v5 xG%50.0%
47.0%Corsi%51.0%
2.33xGF / 602.45
2.56xGA / 602.50
1.99Goals for / gm1.66
2.32Goals against / gm2.23
0.998PDO — luck, not skill0.971

NJD holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 0.971) says SJS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model sees this as pick'em. SJS 2.4-2.6, NJD at 54% win probability — genuinely the closest you'll find in matchmaking.

The Devils are the better-rested team by points pace: 7-1-2 over their last 10. The Sharks are underwater, sitting at -14 goal differential over the same stretch. At 5v5, New Jersey's advantage is narrow but tangible. The Devils own 50.0% xG% and 51.0% Corsi%. San Jose measures 48.0% xG and 47.0% Corsi. Territorial control compounds across 60 minutes.

New Jersey is running cold, though. Their PDO is 0.971, which means positive regression is coming. The bounces will find them. That's not prediction; that's math.

Goaltending could flip the result. A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back. Watch for a tired starter or a surprise backup.

Players to Watch

SJS

  • Pavol Regenda — 1.10 xG/60, 5G 1A, 2 HD goals, 16.1% shooting (marked inactive)
  • Igor Chernyshov — 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting

NJD

  • Timo Meier — 1.08 xG/60, 13G 15A, 3 HD goals, 6.7% shooting
  • Jack Hughes — 0.88 xG/60, 18G 17A, 1 HD goals, 11.5% shooting

The Devils drive play and draw high-danger chances at superior rates, a structural advantage built on sustained possession. Neither team generates secondary chances efficiently: 0% on rebounds, 0% on hard goals. The Sharks' defensive liability is Chernyshov; New Jersey's is Johnathan Kovacevic.

Take New Jersey at home. Their territorial edge and regression trajectory favor the Devils. Nedeljkovic's status is the only question mark; confirm he's starting before you commit. If the backup draws, the probability curve flattens considerably.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters