Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Fri, Nov 7 · the slate
Breakdown · WPG at SJS

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Jets

FinalFri, Nov 7
WPGWinnipeg Jets1SJSSan Jose Sharks2
The verdict · earned

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

WPG 1 · SJS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:00 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 Sharks underperformed their expected goals by 2.60 yet won 2-1. Winnipeg underperformed its 3.93 xG by 2.93—a steeper collapse that proved decisive despite near-even underlying metrics.

San Jose held a slight xG edge (4.60–3.93) and more high-danger chances (9–8). Both teams misfired catastrophically: 0/9 for the Sharks, 0/8 for Winnipeg. Neither conversion rate happens often.

A. Nedeljkovic was the difference. He stopped 32 of 33 shots, outperforming expected saves by 2.93 goals—the margin that converts close games into wins. C. Hellebuyck nearly matched him (26/28, +2.60 vs expected), but Winnipeg's offensive drought offset the goaltending excellence.

M. Celebrini drove San Jose with 1 goal and 1 assist in 19:39. P. Kurashev added an assist. J. Morrissey scored for Winnipeg but lacked support.

Execution separated them. The Sharks converted 1 of 3 rebound chances; Winnipeg created 7 and converted none. A. Nedeljkovic's brilliance sealed it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 7
WPG
1
SJS
2

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Jets

Chances 3.9 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
3.93
SJS
4.60
46% of the chances54%

The board read WPG 1, SJS 2. The chances read WPG 3.9, SJS 4.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
−2.6
goals above expected
SJS4.60 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG3.93 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 2.9 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 12:34WPGJ. Morrissey1–0
  2. P1 13:46SJSM. Celebrini1–1
  3. P3 15:39SJSW. Smith1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
42 shots
1
Final
83 shots
SJS
41 shots
2
WPG attackSJS attack
WPG SJS Goal
42
shots · 1 in
41
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGSJS
0 / 8
1.99 xG
High danger
0 / 9
2.23 xG
0 / 11
1.37 xG
Medium
2 / 16
1.93 xG
1 / 35
0.57 xG
Low
0 / 44
0.44 xG

The Jets went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Nedeljkovic
+2.9
SJS · 32/33
A+
C. Hellebuyck
+2.6
WPG · 26/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Jets

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 12–8
  1. 12:34WPGJ. Morrissey(N. Niederreiter)1–0
  2. 13:46SJSM. Celebrini(T. Toffoli)1–1
2ndshots 9–11no goals
    3rdshots 12–9
    1. 15:39SJSW. Smith(M. Celebrini, P. Kurashev)1–2

    score reads WPG–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.60
    SJS chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.010
    SJS puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    56.1%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.93Expected goals4.60
    SJS 54% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal28
    8High-danger chances9
    54All attempts (Corsi)69
    Adjusted for score: WPG 44% · SJS 56%
    Faceoffs · SJS won35%off33%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    WPG0 / 8 · 1.99 xG
    SJS0 / 9 · 2.23 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    WPG0 / 11 · 1.37 xG
    SJS2 / 16 · 1.93 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    WPG1 / 35 · 0.57 xG
    SJS0 / 44 · 0.44 xG

    SJS went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.23 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    WPG
    1 G · 3.93 xG · -2.9
    SJS
    2 G · 4.60 xG · -2.6
    012345

    WPG finished -2.9 against expected, SJS -2.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    WPG
    WRIST0/23
    SLAP1/7
    BACKHAND0/6
    TIP IN0/3
    SNAP0/2
    BAT0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/12
    SJS
    WRIST0/21
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND2/7
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP0/2
    BAT0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/28
    WPG
    SJS
    Off the rush
    0 G on 20
    1.82 xG
    1 G on 30
    3.49 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    1.47 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.43 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-23, SJS 0-for-21.

    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. Hellebuyck
    WPG · 26/28 · .929
    +2.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/92.2+2.2
    Medium2/161.9-0.1
    Low0/440.4+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

    A. Nedeljkovic
    SJS · 32/33 · .970
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/82.0+2.0
    Medium0/111.4+1.4
    Low1/350.6-0.4

    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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    WPG
    42 shots
    1
    Final
    83 shots
    SJS
    41 shots
    2
    WPG attackSJS attack
    WPG SJS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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. Celebrini
    #71 · C · SJS
    1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 19:39 on ice · +2
    J. Morrissey
    #44 · D · WPG
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:31 on ice
    P. Kurashev
    #96 · C · SJS
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:10 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Nov 7
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:59 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 2.5 to 2.6 goals per game with the Sharks at 52% win probability—a genuine coin flip. When a projection is this tight, the underlying matchup is balanced to the point of indifference.

    At 5v5, both teams generate exactly 48.0% expected goals. Winnipeg's Corsi% sits at 49.0% versus San Jose's 47.0%—a marginal edge in puck possession that doesn't move the needle. Both carry identical 0.998 PDOs, meaning neither benefits from shooting luck or goaltending randomness.

    Winnipeg's offense relies on volume from Nino Niederreiter and Kyle Connor. Niederreiter's 0.87 xG/60 and 3 high-danger chances leave room to sustain production, while Connor's 13.0% shooting rate on 25 goals is an outlier regression will flatten. San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, whose 1.10 xG/60 and 16.1% shooting rate identify him as the matchup's most dangerous scorer, and Igor Chernyshov, whose offensive contributions come with defensive liabilities.

    Players to Watch

    WPG

    • Nino Niederreiter — 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting
    • Kyle Connor — 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting

    SJS

    • Pavol Regenda — 1.10 xG/60, 5G 1A, 2 HD goals, 16.1% shooting
    • Igor Chernyshov — 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, 1 HD goal, 15.0% shooting

    Both teams operate at 0% for high-danger and rebound scoring—a void neither has exploited. Winnipeg's defense carries Colin Miller as its weak link, while San Jose's perimeter liability is Igor Chernyshov.

    Goaltending breaks the tie. Two evenly matched rosters with identical underlying profiles live or die on save percentage. That's where the one-goal-per-game margin comes from.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    SJS 52%
    52%
    SJS
    Model favorite
    48%
    52%
    WPG50SJS

    SJS by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score WPG 2.5–2.6 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
    WPG← edge
    edge →SJS
    48.0%48.0%
    49.0%47.0%
    2.342.33
    2.552.56
    1.901.99
    2.102.32
    0.9980.998

    WPG holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    WPG
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    SJS
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.998
    WPG 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
    • Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    WPG
    Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
    0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
    Kyle Connor25G 30A
    0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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

    Back to the front page