Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Sun, Oct 26 · the slate
Breakdown · EDM at VAN

Canucks edge the Oilers in overtime

Final / OTSun, Oct 26
EDMEdmonton Oilers3VANVancouver Canucks4
The verdict · coin flip

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

EDM 3 · VAN 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:22 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' execution in the high-danger zone overcame an xG deficit. Expected goals favored Edmonton 3.26–3.02, but Vancouver converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%), and Kiefer Sherwood's tip-in at 01:43 of overtime ended the game.

Vancouver held 48% of shot attempts (27–29) and overperformed their xG by 0.98 goals. The Canucks converted 4 of 27 rush chances while Edmonton converted 3 of 36—a decisive efficiency gap on counterattacks.

C. Pickard allowed a 0.98-goal shortfall, posting a 0.852 SV% on 23 saves. T. Demko recorded a 0.897 SV% (26 of 29).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 26
EDM
3
VAN
4

Canucks edge the Oilers in overtime

Chances 3.3 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Canucks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
3.26
VAN
3.02
52% of the chances48%

The board read EDM 3, VAN 4. The chances read EDM 3.3, VAN 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+1.0
goals above expected
VAN3.02 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM3.26 expected · 3 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 15:42VANB. Boeser0–1
  2. P2 02:22VANE. PetterssonPP0–2
  3. P2 16:32EDML. Draisaitl1–2
  4. P2 19:19VANK. Sherwood1–3
  5. P3 01:21EDMJ. Roslovic2–3
  6. P3 14:57EDML. DraisaitlPP3–3
  7. OT 01:43VANK. Sherwood3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
45 shots
3
Final
85 shots
VAN
40 shots
4
EDM attackVAN attack
EDM VAN Goal
45
shots · 3 in
40
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMVAN
0 / 2
0.57 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.94 xG
3 / 21
2.19 xG
Medium
2 / 14
1.63 xG
0 / 40
0.50 xG
Low
0 / 36
0.45 xG

The Canucks buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
T. Demko
+0.3
VAN · 26/29
D-
C. Pickard
−1.0
EDM · 23/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks edge the Oilers 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 13–8
  1. 15:42VANB. Boeser(E. Kane, M. Pettersson)0–1
2ndshots 7–10
  1. 02:22VANE. Petterssonpower play(F. Hronek, C. Garland)0–2
  2. 16:32EDML. Draisaitl(E. Bouchard, J. Roslovic)1–2
  3. 19:19VANK. Sherwood(B. Boeser, E. Pettersson)1–3
3rdshots 9–8
  1. 01:21EDMJ. Roslovic(V. Podkolzin)2–3
  2. 14:57EDML. Draisaitlpower play(C. McDavid, R. Nugent-Hopkins)3–3
OTshots 0–1
  1. 01:43VANK. Sherwood(B. Boeser, C. Garland)3–4

score reads EDM–VAN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.02
VAN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.026
VAN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.26Expected goals3.02
EDM 52% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal27
2High-danger chances4
63All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: EDM 57% · VAN 43%
Faceoffs · VAN won40%off59%neu77%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM0 / 2 · 0.57 xG
VAN2 / 4 · 0.94 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM3 / 21 · 2.19 xG
VAN2 / 14 · 1.63 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM0 / 40 · 0.50 xG
VAN0 / 36 · 0.45 xG

VAN went 2-for-4 from high danger on 0.94 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
3 G · 3.26 xG · -0.3
VAN
4 G · 3.02 xG · +1.0
012345

EDM finished -0.3 against expected, VAN +1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST2/21
SNAP1/13
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/0
BAT0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/18
VAN
WRIST1/13
SNAP0/9
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND1/7
SLAP1/5
BAT0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/14
EDM
VAN
Off the rush
3 G on 36
3.08 xG
4 G on 27
2.46 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.04 xG
0 G on 1
0.10 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 2-for-21, VAN 1-for-13. VAN scored 4 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
C. Pickard
EDM · 23/27 · .852
-1.0
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/40.9-1.1
Medium2/141.6-0.4
Low0/360.5+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

T. Demko
VAN · 26/29 · .897
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.6+0.6
Medium3/212.2-0.8
Low0/400.5+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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
45 shots
3
Final
85 shots
VAN
40 shots
4
EDM attackVAN attack
EDM VAN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, VAN 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
B. Boeser
#6 · R · VAN
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:40 on ice · +2
C. Garland
#8 · R · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:05 on ice · +1
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:55 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Oct 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:21 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 sees this 2.7-2.5 game and hands Edmonton a 54% win probability. That's a coin flip.

Edmonton owns the territorial play. The Oilers are posting 52.0% 5v5 expected goals and controlling 50.0% Corsi — they dictate where the game is played. Vancouver sits at 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi, which means the Canucks will chase all night.

Both teams are running cold relative to their underlying skill. Edmonton's PDO of 0.982 is depressed; Vancouver's 0.974 is depressed. Regression cuts both ways in a tight spot like this, and both clubs are due for positive variance.

The one tactical edge: K. Lankinen faces a back-to-back. Whether Vancouver pulls a backup or runs a fatigued starter will alter how Edmonton attacks the crease.

Players to Watch

EDM

  • Zach Hyman — 1.23 xG/60, 14G 13A, 1 HD goal (13.0% shooting)
  • Connor McDavid — 0.92 xG/60, 25G 33A, 5 HD goals (13.7% shooting)

VAN

  • Filip Chytil — 1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goal (15.0% shooting)
  • Drew O'Connor — 0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals (11.8% shooting)

The matchup hinges on Edmonton's proven finishers against Vancouver's inconsistent attack. Hyman and McDavid generate the volume the Oilers need to win possession wars into goals. On the flip side, Chytil's low goal total despite heavy shot-generation and O'Connor's secondary scoring pattern suggests Vancouver will struggle to convert even the chances they steal.

Defensively, Edmonton bleeds on the Walman flank; Vancouver's weak link is Mancini. Neither team converts high-danger chances at rates that suggest structural advantage — both posting 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. Execution in tight space becomes everything.

The model's edge: Edmonton dominates possession, which typically wins hockey games. The catch is that both PDOs can only regress upward, and Vancouver's cold spell offers the underdog math in a toss-up.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 54%
54%
EDM
Model favorite
54%
46%
EDM50VAN

EDM by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 2.7–2.5 VAN; 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 →VAN
52.0%44.0%
50.0%46.0%
2.642.22
2.472.81
2.131.60
2.292.56
0.9820.974

EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.974) says EDM has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
EDM
4-4-2
-4 GD · 2d rest
VAN
5-5-0
-2 GD · 1d rest
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.974
VAN 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 44.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • 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 44.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
EDM
Expected in goal
C. Pickard
2 days rest.815 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
back-to-back.833 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.

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
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page