The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.76–5.66 and won anyway.
The Kings won 4-3 despite losing the expected-goals battle 5.66–1.76. San Jose deserved better.
The Sharks controlled this game in every meaningful way. They held 74% of shot attempts (40–14 on goal). Expected goals finished at 76–24 in their favor—a gap large enough that the scoreboard was dishonest.
High-danger chances reinforced the dominance: 8–2 to San Jose. Quality per attempt told the same story—the Sharks generated 0.072 expected goals per shot; the Kings managed 0.052. A team creating better chances lost to a team that didn't.
The Kings scored where it counted. They scored 4 goals on 17 rush chances (24% conversion). San Jose scored 2 on 31 rush attempts. They crashed the net hard (5 rebound opportunities), but nothing fell.
Variance is the story here. D. Kuemper, behind a team that never should have won, saved 2.66 goals above expected (37 of 40 stops). Y. Askarov gave up 4 goals on 14 shots—2.24 above the 1.76 expected. One got heroically lucky; the other got buried by chaos.
This is what variance looks like: a Sharks team that should have won by two, walking out 4-3 losers. The Kings stole one. San Jose learned why expected goals exist.

