Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a blue sweater
← Tue, Oct 28 · the slate
Breakdown · NYR at VAN

Rangers shut out the Canucks, 2-0

FinalTue, Oct 28
NYRNew York Rangers2VANVancouver Canucks0
The verdict · earned

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

NYR 2 · VAN 0
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:47 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 Rangers' 2-0 win masked a goaltending paradox: T. Demko saved 3.36 goals above expected yet lost, while J. Quick saved 2.79 above expected in victory. Offense, not defense, determined the outcome.

New York dominated high-danger chances, 8 to 3. The Rangers also shot more efficiently: 0.082 expected goals per shot attempt versus Vancouver's 0.050. Over the full game, that efficiency gap produced a 4.36-2.79 expected goal split (61-39), favoring New York.

Vancouver held 48% of shot attempts (23 to 25) but generated only 2.79 expected goals, then scored zero — underperforming by the full 2.79. The Rangers generated 4.36, scored 2, underperforming by 2.36. For Vancouver, that represented offensive catastrophe; for New York, merely left points on the table.

Both teams created five rebound opportunities and crashed the net structurally. But structure without execution is futility. Demko stopped everything except the inevitable: a team that couldn't finish. Quick reaped the benefit of teammates who could. The Rangers' 0.082 xG per attempt to Vancouver's 0.050 tells the complete story — New York took better shots, made them count at the margins, and left the Canucks with a loss they earned through dominance, not through poor execution by the goaltender.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 28
NYR
2
VAN
0

Rangers shut out the Canucks, 2-0

Chances 4.4 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Rangers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NYR
4.36
VAN
2.79
61% of the chances39%

The board read NYR 2, VAN 0. The chances read NYR 4.4, VAN 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NYR
−2.4
goals above expected
NYR4.36 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.79 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 2.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 17:28NYRM. Zibanejad1–0
  2. P3 18:27NYRS. CarrickEN2–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NYR
42 shots
2
Final
85 shots
VAN
43 shots
0
NYR attackVAN attack
NYR VAN Goal
42
shots · 2 in
43
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NYRVAN
2 / 8
2.07 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.59 xG
0 / 13
1.57 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.60 xG
0 / 32
0.72 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.61 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
T. Demko
+3.4
VAN · 23/24
A+
J. Quick
+2.8
NYR · 23/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Rangers shut out the Canucks, 2-0

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 7–4
  1. 17:28NYRM. Zibanejad(W. Cuylle, A. Fox)1–0
2ndshots 11–7no goals
    3rdshots 7–12
    1. 18:27NYRS. Carrickempty net(A. Lafrenière, A. Fox)2–0

    score reads NYR–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.36
    NYR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.4
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.038
    NYR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.36Expected goals2.79
    NYR 61% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal23
    8High-danger chances3
    53All attempts (Corsi)56
    Adjusted for score: NYR 46% · VAN 54%
    Faceoffs · VAN won50%off42%neu41%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NYR2 / 8 · 2.07 xG
    VAN0 / 3 · 0.59 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NYR0 / 13 · 1.57 xG
    VAN0 / 14 · 1.60 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NYR0 / 32 · 0.72 xG
    VAN0 / 39 · 0.61 xG

    VAN went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NYR
    2 G · 4.36 xG · -2.4
    VAN
    0 G · 2.79 xG · -2.8
    012345

    NYR finished -2.4 against expected, VAN -2.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NYR
    WRIST1/18
    TIP IN0/16
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/3
    SNAP1/2
    OTHER0/11
    VAN
    WRIST0/23
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/5
    SNAP0/2
    OTHER0/13
    NYR
    VAN
    Off the rush
    1 G on 26
    2.57 xG
    0 G on 24
    1.68 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.65 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.58 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NYR went 1-for-18, VAN 0-for-23.

    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
    J. Quick
    NYR · 23/23 · 1.000
    +2.8
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.6+0.6
    Medium0/141.6+1.6
    Low0/390.6+0.6

    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 · 23/24 · .958
    +3.4
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/82.1+0.1
    Medium0/131.6+1.6
    Low0/320.7+0.7

    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
    NYR
    42 shots
    2
    Final
    85 shots
    VAN
    43 shots
    0
    NYR attackVAN attack
    NYR VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NYR 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
    A. Fox
    #23 · D · NYR
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:04 on ice · +1
    M. Zibanejad
    #93 · C · NYR
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 23:51 on ice · +1
    W. Cuylle
    #50 · L · NYR
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:35 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Oct 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:45 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 2.5-2.4 Rangers win with New York at 52% probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The underlying talent split explains why.

    New York dominates the structural play. At 5v5, the Rangers post a 48.0% expected goals share to Vancouver's 44.0%, a meaningful edge in shot quality. That advantage extends to possession: a 49.0% Corsi split versus the Canucks' 46.0%. By every primary measure, the Rangers are the more dangerous team.

    Vancouver's deficit isn't incompetence—it's sequencing. The Canucks run a 0.974 PDO, indicating a team running cold on conversion and save percentage. Regression favors them. But regression takes time, and this game won't wait.

    The goaltending situation clouds an otherwise clear matchup. Both I. Shesterkin and T. Demko are on back-to-backs, raising the specter of a backup appearance or a fatigued starter. If Vancouver gets fresh net, the underlying play matters less; if New York does, the advantage evaporates.

    The individual talent tips Rangers. Adam Sykora carries a 0.91 expected goals per 60 minutes at 20.0% shooting, converting on 3 goals and 1 assist. That shooting volume suggests unsustainable luck, but for tonight it makes him dangerous. Gabe Perreault (8 goals, 13.1% shooting) is a secondary threat who's added 2 high-danger goals and 11 assists.

    Vancouver counters with depth. Filip Chytil leads at 1.03 xG/60, though he has just 3 goals with 1 high-danger chance created—his shot luck runs the opposite direction. Drew O'Connor (13 goals, 11 assists, 3 high-danger goals, 0.85 xG/60, 11.8% shooting) is the conversion engine Vancouver will lean on. He's sustainable if not explosive.

    The Canucks' defensive vulnerability centers on Victor Mancini. New York will have a soft target if the game opens up. The Rangers' own structural leak is Vincent Iorio, though with New York controlling play, he shouldn't see sustained pressure.

    Both teams generate 0% of their goals from high-danger areas and 0% from rebounds—unlikely if true, likely a data artifact—so offensive cleanup won't separate them.

    The deciding factor isn't talent; it's the backup goaltender lottery. If both go 60 minutes fresh, New York wins a closer game. If either pulls a backup, that team is dead.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    NYR 52%
    52%
    NYR
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    NYR50VAN

    NYR by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NYR 2.5–2.4 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
    NYR← edge
    edge →VAN
    48.0%44.0%
    49.0%46.0%
    2.262.22
    2.402.81
    1.881.60
    1.902.56
    1.0090.974

    NYR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.009 vs 0.974) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    NYR
    3-5-2
    -4 GD · 1d rest
    VAN
    5-5-0
    -2 GD · 1d rest
    1.009
    NYR 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 Rangers own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Rangers own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • T. Demko is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • I. Shesterkin 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
    NYR
    Expected in goal
    I. Shesterkin
    back-to-back.833 last start
    Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 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.

    VAN
    Expected in goal
    T. Demko
    back-to-back.897 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
    NYR
    Adam Sykora3G 1A
    0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
    Gabe Perreault8G 11A
    0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% 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