Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
Breakdown · EDM at SEA

Kraken hold off the Oilers

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 2 · SEA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:16 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

Seattle outshot Edmonton 33-23 but lost the underlying game by a large margin—the Kraken dominated expected goals 3.99-2.92, a 58-42 split that explains the 3-2 final. Quality of chances, not volume, determined the outcome.

The difference in shot value was stark. Seattle generated 0.078 expected goals per shot; Edmonton managed 0.041. High-danger chances backed the xG (4-2 Kraken), and the Kraken converted them more efficiently on the rush: 3 goals on 25 chances versus Edmonton's 2 on 31.

The Oilers generated higher-quality looks than their shot total suggests. They crashed the net effectively, creating 5 rebound opportunities, but converted zero. Both goaltenders overperformed their expected save percentage—J. Daccord finished 31 of 33 at 0.939; S. Skinner stopped 20 of 23 at 0.870.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 25
EDM
2
SEA
3

Kraken hold off the Oilers

Chances 2.9 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kraken earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
2.92
SEA
3.99
42% of the chances58%

The board read EDM 2, SEA 3. The chances read EDM 2.9, SEA 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
−1.0
goals above expected
SEA3.99 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM2.92 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 01:23SEAJ. Eberle0–1
  2. P2 06:35SEAT. Kartye0–2
  3. P2 15:39EDME. BouchardPP1–2
  4. P3 12:11SEAJ. Eberle1–3
  5. P3 14:35EDMD. Nurse2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
50 shots
2
Final
87 shots
SEA
37 shots
3
EDM attackSEA attack
EDM SEA Goal
50
shots · 2 in
37
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMSEA
0 / 2
0.40 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.77 xG
1 / 17
1.77 xG
Medium
3 / 16
1.75 xG
1 / 52
0.76 xG
Low
0 / 31
0.47 xG

High-danger looks: EDM 0 of 2, SEA 0 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
S. Skinner
+1.0
EDM · 20/23
B+
J. Daccord
+0.9
SEA · 31/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kraken hold off the Oilers

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 12–11
  1. 01:23SEAJ. Eberle(M. Beniers, B. Catton)0–1
2ndshots 9–7
  1. 06:35SEAT. Kartye(R. Winterton, B. Meyers)0–2
  2. 15:39EDME. Bouchardpower play(L. Draisaitl, R. Nugent-Hopkins)1–2
3rdshots 12–5
  1. 12:11SEAJ. Eberle(M. Beniers)1–3
  2. 14:35EDMD. Nurse(M. Ekholm, L. Draisaitl)2–3

score reads EDM–SEA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.99
SEA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.031
SEA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.92Expected goals3.99
SEA 58% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal23
2High-danger chances4
71All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: EDM 63% · SEA 37%
Faceoffs · SEA won42%off50%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM0 / 2 · 0.40 xG
SEA0 / 4 · 1.77 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM1 / 17 · 1.77 xG
SEA3 / 16 · 1.75 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM1 / 52 · 0.76 xG
SEA0 / 31 · 0.47 xG

SEA went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.77 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
2 G · 2.92 xG · -0.9
SEA
3 G · 3.99 xG · -1.0
012345

EDM finished -0.9 against expected, SEA -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST0/31
SNAP0/6
SLAP1/4
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/3
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/21
SEA
WRIST3/27
SNAP0/2
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/14
EDM
SEA
Off the rush
2 G on 31
1.97 xG
3 G on 25
2.13 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.62 xG
0 G on 1
0.22 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 0-for-31, SEA 3-for-27. SEA 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
S. Skinner
EDM · 20/23 · .870
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.8+1.8
Medium3/161.8-1.3
Low0/310.5+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

J. Daccord
SEA · 31/33 · .939
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium1/171.8+0.8
Low1/520.8-0.2

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
50 shots
2
Final
87 shots
SEA
37 shots
3
EDM attackSEA attack
EDM SEA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, SEA 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
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 21:59 on ice · +1
J. Eberle
#7 · R · SEA
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 21:19 on ice · +2
M. Beniers
#10 · C · SEA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:58 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 25
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:15 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 a 2.6–2.4 Edmonton victory with the Oilers at 53% win probability. This is a coin flip.

Edmonton owns the underlying play. The Oilers control 52.0% 5v5 expected goals versus Seattle's 46.0%. They own 50.0% Corsi, which tilts possession toward the Kraken end. But Edmonton's PDO sits at 0.982—they're running cold and due for positive regression. Seattle's 1.011 PDO is the inverse: they're running hot and vulnerable to correction.

Offensive efficiency is where this game lives. Connor McDavid (25G, 33A, 0.92 xG/60, 13.7% shooting, 5 HD goals) and Zach Hyman (14G, 13A, 1.23 xG/60, 13.0% shooting, 1 HD goal) operate at elite rates. Hyman's 1.23 xG/60 is exceptional; his 13.0% shooting sits well above average. That just 1 of his 14 goals comes from high-danger chances suggests his scoring mix skews toward medium-danger opportunities—skill-based, but worth monitoring. McDavid's 13.7% shooting is equally elite. Seattle's top scorers, Shane Wright (8G, 10A, 0.77 xG/60, 10.4% shooting, 4 HD goals) and Berkly Catton (6G, 8A, 0.68 xG/60, 8.8% shooting, 5 HD goals), lag in both volume and efficiency.

Defensively, Jake Walman is Edmonton's weak link. Chandler Stephenson is Seattle's.

Three Stars to Watch

  • Connor McDavid (EDM)
  • Zach Hyman (EDM)
  • Shane Wright (SEA)
What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 53%
53%
EDM
Model favorite
53%
47%
EDM50SEA

EDM by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.4 SEA; 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 →SEA
52.0%46.0%
50.0%45.0%
2.642.13
2.472.51
2.131.87
2.291.95
0.9821.011

EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 1.011) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
EDM
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
SEA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.011
SEA 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 46.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
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
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next