Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · EDM at DAL

Stars run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 3 · DAL 4
◆ 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

Dallas dominated the underlying numbers but still needed a shootout to beat Edmonton 4-3. The Stars controlled 63% of expected goals (5.38–3.11), a decisive advantage that should have felt dominant—except they underperformed their xG by 1.38 goals, and Skinner kept the Oilers in contention by saving 2.38 goals above expected.

The gap came down to quality over volume. Dallas generated far more dangerous looks, outshooting Edmonton on high-danger chances 11–6 and posting a xG-per-shot rate of 0.087 versus Edmonton's 0.062. This is the story the underlying numbers tell: Dallas made their chances count when it mattered, while Edmonton couldn't capitalize, going 0–6 on high-danger opportunities.

Yet the scoreboard told a closer tale. Both teams pushed shots on net—Dallas at 27, Edmonton at 26—creating a wide-open game with 17 high-danger chances combined. DeSmith was near-perfect in net for Dallas, stopping all six high-danger shots against him. Skinner, meanwhile, stole the show for Edmonton despite the loss, overperforming his xG by 2.38 goals in a losing effort.

The turning point arrived in the shootout, where W. Johnston's snap shot from the slot decided the outcome. It's the kind of variance that shrouds a blowout in the illusion of a close call: Dallas had the better underlying play, the better goaltending on high-danger chances, and the better shot quality. The only thing they didn't have was a multi-goal lead at the final horn.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 4
EDM
3
DAL
4

Stars run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.1 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
3.11
DAL
5.38
37% of the chances63%

The board read EDM 3, DAL 4. The chances read EDM 3.1, DAL 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
−1.4
goals above expected
DAL5.38 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM3.11 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 03:40EDMV. Podkolzin1–0
  2. P1 07:07EDML. DraisaitlPP2–0
  3. P2 09:10DALM. RantanenPP2–1
  4. P3 07:51EDMC. McDavid3–1
  5. P3 08:37DALM. Rantanen3–2
  6. P3 12:20DALM. Heiskanen3–3
  7. SO 00:00DALJ. RobertsonPP3–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
43 shots
4
Final
88 shots
DAL
45 shots
5
EDM attackDAL attack
EDM DAL Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

43
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMDAL
0 / 6
1.34 xG
High danger
2 / 11
3.17 xG
2 / 12
1.15 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.87 xG
1 / 32
0.62 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.34 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Skinner
+2.4
EDM · 24/27
C
C. DeSmith
+0.1
DAL · 23/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars run the Oilers 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 7–11
  1. 03:40EDMV. Podkolzin(J. Roslovic, E. Bouchard)1–0
  2. 07:07EDML. Draisaitlpower play(J. Roslovic, C. McDavid)2–0
2ndshots 5–8
  1. 09:10DALM. Rantanenpower play(W. Johnston, J. Robertson)2–1
3rdshots 12–5
  1. 07:51EDMC. McDavid(R. Nugent-Hopkins, A. Mangiapane)3–1
  2. 08:37DALM. Rantanen(W. Johnston, A. Petrovic)3–2
  3. 12:20DALM. Heiskanen(M. Rantanen, W. Johnston)3–3
OTshots 2–3no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00DALJ. Robertsonpower play3–3
    2. 00:00EDML. Draisaitlpower play3–3
    3. 00:00DALW. Johnstonpower play3–3

    score reads EDM–DAL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.38
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.4
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.988
    DAL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    55.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.11Expected goals5.38
    DAL 63% of the chance quality
    26Shots on goal27
    6High-danger chances11
    50All attempts (Corsi)62
    Adjusted for score: EDM 40% · DAL 60%
    Faceoffs · DAL won55%off39%neu42%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    EDM0 / 6 · 1.34 xG
    DAL2 / 11 · 3.17 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    EDM2 / 12 · 1.15 xG
    DAL1 / 16 · 1.87 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    EDM1 / 32 · 0.62 xG
    DAL0 / 35 · 0.34 xG

    EDM went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.34 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    EDM
    3 G · 3.11 xG · -0.1
    DAL
    4 G · 5.38 xG · -1.4
    0123456

    EDM finished -0.1 against expected, DAL -1.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    EDM
    SNAP3/27
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    SLAP0/7
    WRIST0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/9
    DAL
    SNAP2/28
    BACKHAND1/4
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/0
    WRIST0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/20
    EDM
    DAL
    Off the rush
    3 G on 30
    2.33 xG
    2 G on 27
    4.09 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.32 xG
    1 G on 7
    1.01 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: EDM went 3-for-27, DAL 2-for-28. EDM 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 · 24/27 · .889
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/113.2+1.2
    Medium1/161.9+0.9
    Low0/350.3+0.3

    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

    C. DeSmith
    DAL · 23/26 · .885
    +0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.3+1.3
    Medium2/121.1-0.8
    Low1/320.6-0.4

    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

    88 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    EDM
    43 shots
    4
    Final
    88 shots
    DAL
    45 shots
    5
    EDM attackDAL attack
    EDM DAL Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, DAL 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
    W. Johnston
    #53 · C · DAL
    0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 23:29 on ice · +1
    M. Rantanen
    #96 · R · DAL
    2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:48 on ice · +1
    C. McDavid
    #97 · C · EDM
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:13 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Nov 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:35 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 pregame model calls this a coin flip: 2.5 goals projected for each side, the Stars at 51% win probability. It's about as close to pick'em as the numbers get.

    The 5v5 metrics explain why. Edmonton leads in xG% (52.0% to 51.0%) and Corsi% (50.0% to 47.0%), indicating superior territorial control. But Dallas's PDO of 1.024 versus Edmonton's 0.982 reveals the symmetry: the Stars are running hot on puck luck, the Oilers cold. That divergence will eventually regress, but tonight is uncertain.

    Dallas enters underwater: −5 goal differential over their last 10 games. That's what unsustainably high PDO and slightly worse territory produce. The Oilers figure to spend tonight in Dallas's end.

    The single-game wildcard: star power. Both teams concentrate their offensive punch among elite creators. Connor McDavid (25G, 33A) is Edmonton's engine, Zach Hyman (1.23 xG/60, 14G) the secondary finisher. Dallas leans on Jason Robertson (25G, 21A) and Michael Bunting (8G, 7.6% shooting). With both teams posting 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound rates, offense lives or dies on star creation. The team whose best player wins his individual battle will likely win the game.

    The secondary level provides the tiebreaker. Jake Walman is Edmonton's defensive liability; Tyler Myers is Dallas's. In a matchup this tight, a giveaway or missed coverage could decide it.

    The model is right. This is a coin flip.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DAL 51%
    51%
    DAL
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    EDM50DAL

    DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.5–2.5 DAL; 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 →DAL
    52.0%51.0%
    50.0%47.0%
    2.642.36
    2.472.29
    2.132.07
    2.291.68
    0.9821.024

    EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    EDM
    4-4-2
    -3 GD · 2d rest
    DAL
    4-3-3
    -5 GD · 3d rest
    0.982
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Stars are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    EDM
    Expected in goal
    S. Skinner
    2 days rest.931 last start
    Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DAL
    Expected in goal
    C. DeSmith
    3 days rest.893 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

    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
    DAL
    Jason Robertson25G 21A
    0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
    Michael Bunting8G 14A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next