Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
Breakdown · DET at SJS

Red Wings run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

DET 3 · SJS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:33 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 Red Wings controlled 69% of 5v5 expected goals (3.76–1.66) and created routinely higher-quality chances — 0.054 xG per shot versus San Jose's 0.034 — yet needed a shootout to finish off a team they dominated. A. Nedeljkovic's exceptional goaltending, stopping 1.8 goals above expected, was the only reason the 3-2 result stayed close.

The Red Wings underperformed their chances by 0.76 goals, squandering opportunities that should have put the game away decisively. Detroit's 32 shot attempts yielded 3.76 xG; San Jose's 18 yielded 1.66. High-danger chances split 3–3, but the Sharks were lethal on the rush, scoring 2 goals on 17 rush opportunities. Detroit crashed the net effectively, creating 5 rebound chances without converting any.

The underlying control was never in question — only Nedeljkovic's wall stood between Detroit's performance and a more emphatic scoreline.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 2
DET
3
SJS
2

Red Wings run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.8 – 1.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
3.76
SJS
1.66
69% of the chances31%

The board read DET 3, SJS 2. The chances read DET 3.8, SJS 1.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
−0.8
goals above expected
DET3.76 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS1.66 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. P2 18:05DETL. Raymond1–0
  2. P3 00:49SJSJ. Skinner1–1
  3. P3 10:16DETM. Seider2–1
  4. P3 16:55SJSS. Dickinson2–2
  5. SO 00:00DETJ. van RiemsdykPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
54 shots
3
Final
84 shots
SJS
30 shots
2
DET attackSJS attack
DET SJS Goal
54
shots · 3 in
30
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETSJS
0 / 3
0.69 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.63 xG
1 / 22
2.46 xG
Medium
0 / 6
0.65 xG
1 / 45
0.61 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.37 xG

High-danger looks: DET 0 of 3, SJS 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Nedeljkovic
+1.8
SJS · 30/32
D
C. Talbot
−0.3
DET · 16/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 6–5no goals
    2ndshots 14–4
    1. 18:05DETL. Raymond(A. Sandin-Pellikka, D. Larkin)1–0
    3rdshots 8–7
    1. 00:49SJSJ. Skinner(P. Kurashev, D. Orlov)1–1
    2. 10:16DETM. Seider(S. Edvinsson, A. DeBrincat)2–1
    3. 16:55SJSS. Dickinson(W. Smith, P. Giles)2–2
    OTshots 4–2no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00DETJ. van Riemsdykpower play2–2

      score reads DET–SJS

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      3.76
      DET chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.8
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      0.988
      DET puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      58.8%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.76Expected goals1.66
      DET 69% of the chance quality
      32Shots on goal18
      3High-danger chances3
      70All attempts (Corsi)49
      Adjusted for score: DET 58% · SJS 42%
      Faceoffs · SJS won38%off55%neu30%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      DET0 / 3 · 0.69 xG
      SJS1 / 3 · 0.63 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      DET1 / 22 · 2.46 xG
      SJS0 / 6 · 0.65 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      DET1 / 45 · 0.61 xG
      SJS1 / 40 · 0.37 xG

      DET went 1-for-22 from medium danger on 2.46 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      DET
      3 G · 3.76 xG · -0.8
      SJS
      2 G · 1.66 xG · +0.3
      012345

      DET finished -0.8 against expected, SJS +0.3.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      DET
      WRIST2/30
      SLAP0/5
      BACKHAND0/7
      TIP IN0/4
      SNAP0/3
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      DEFLECTED0/0
      OTHER0/20
      SJS
      WRIST1/16
      SLAP0/4
      BACKHAND0/1
      TIP IN1/4
      SNAP0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/1
      OTHER0/23
      DET
      SJS
      Off the rush
      1 G on 32
      2.62 xG
      2 G on 17
      1.58 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 5
      0.56 xG
      0 G on 0
      0.00 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-30, SJS 1-for-16. SJS scored 2 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. Talbot
      DET · 16/18 · .889
      -0.3
      saved above expected
      D
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/30.6-0.4
      Medium0/60.7+0.7
      Low1/400.4-0.6

      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

      A. Nedeljkovic
      SJS · 30/32 · .938
      +1.8
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.7+0.7
      Medium1/222.5+1.5
      Low1/450.6-0.4

      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

      84 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      DET
      54 shots
      3
      Final
      84 shots
      SJS
      30 shots
      2
      DET attackSJS attack
      DET SJS Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — DET left, SJS 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
      M. Seider
      #53 · D · DET
      1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 25:00 on ice
      D. Larkin
      #71 · C · DET
      0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:07 on ice
      S. Edvinsson
      #77 · D · DET
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:39 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sun, Nov 2
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:25 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 gives this a 2.5-2.5 projection with the Sharks at 51% win probability. You have essentially no edge either way.

      The underlying numbers explain why. Detroit and San Jose are statistically identical at 5v5: Red Wings at 49.0% expected goals and 49.0% Corsi; Sharks at 48.0% and 47.0%. Both teams are performing almost exactly to their ability. The only gap that matters is recent form, where Detroit has stolen momentum.

      The Red Wings are 7-3-0 in their last 10, converting schedule variance into points. San Jose is -8 in goal differential over the same stretch—not desperate yet, but running cold enough that regression is plausible. The Sharks' PDO of 0.998 suggests they've been moderately fortunate; Detroit's 0.985 implies they've been slightly unlucky. That gap will revert. The question is when.

      Detroit's edge is concentrated on Alex DeBrincat, who carries 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes and has scored at 9.0%—genuinely elite, and the type of repeatable advantage that matters in tight games. Marco Kasper backs that up at 0.81 xG/60, though his 6.1% shooting is unsustainable and will normalize downward. Between them, they represent Detroit's primary threat.

      San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, whose 1.10 xG/60 is the highest firepower on the ice—but he's marked as likely out. Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A) becomes the primary architect, which is competent but not elite. The statistical gap between DeBrincat and a Chernyshov-led attack is real and directional toward Detroit.

      The complication: both goalies are on back-to-backs. Y. Askarov and J. Gibson could each see unexpected backup appearances, or both could start fatigued. That unpredictability cuts both ways and favors neither side systematically.

      Detroit's defensive liability is Axel Sandin-Pellikka; San Jose's is Chernyshov himself, who must carry both playmaking and defensive responsibility with uneven results. Neither team has generated hard-goal advantages or significant rebound-goal volume—both are running at 0% in those categories—which suggests tight, low-variance hockey where skill and recent trend dominate.

      The model is right: this is a coin flip with a thumb slightly on Detroit's side. The Red Wings have form, superior individual talent in DeBrincat, and a healthier roster. San Jose's offense is functional but hampered. The Sharks' PDO suggests upside, but that's probabilistic noise, not actionable insight. Back Detroit if you need to pick, but only barely.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      SJS 51%
      51%
      SJS
      Model favorite
      49%
      51%
      DET50SJS

      SJS by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DET 2.5–2.5 SJS; 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
      DET← edge
      edge →SJS
      49.0%48.0%
      49.0%47.0%
      2.382.33
      2.502.56
      1.731.99
      2.072.32
      0.9850.998

      DET holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.998) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      DET
      7-3-0
      +3 GD · 1d rest
      SJS
      4-6-0
      -8 GD · 1d rest
      0.985
      DET PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.998
      SJS PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Things to watch
      • Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • J. Gibson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Red Wings are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
      • The Sharks are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      DET
      Expected in goal
      J. Gibson
      back-to-back.871 last start
      Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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.

      SJS
      Expected in goal
      Y. Askarov
      back-to-back.974 last start
      Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
      DET
      Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
      0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
      Marco Kasper7G 8A
      0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
      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
      Keep going

      Where to next