Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Sat, Nov 8 · the slate
Breakdown · CBJ at VAN

Canucks steal one from the Blue Jackets against the run of play

FinalSat, Nov 8
CBJColumbus Blue Jackets3VANVancouver Canucks4
The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.82–3.41 and won anyway.

CBJ 3 · VAN 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:11 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 Canucks won 4-3 despite being massively outplayed by expected goals. Columbus generated 4.82 xG to Vancouver's 3.41—a 58-42 split that looked nothing like the final score.

The Blue Jackets also dominated shot attempts (32 to 24) and high-danger chances (9 to 3). Yet Vancouver left Columbus with nothing. The gap between what should have happened and what did was entirely K. Lankinen's fault—in the best way possible.

Lankinen finished with a 0.906 save percentage and stopped 1.82 goals above expected. E. Merzlikins, meanwhile, recorded 20 saves on 24 shots, a 0.833 save percentage, 0.59 below expected. That goaltending gap determined the game.

Columbus did itself no favors with elite-level mediocrity. K. Marchenko scored twice and added an assist; D. Voronkov added a goal and two assists; A. Fantilli contributed two assists. The Blue Jackets created the looks. They just didn't finish—underperforming their xG by 1.82 goals, a sizable crater on a low-volume night.

Vancouver, meanwhile, was lethal on the rush (2 goals on 27 chances) and crashed the net effectively (2 rebound goals from 6 rebound chances). One goal came from Brock Boeser's wrist shot from the high slot in the third period. The Canucks did everything wrong structurally and everything right when it mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 8
CBJ
3
VAN
4

Canucks steal one from the Blue Jackets against the run of play

Chances 4.8 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
4.82
VAN
3.41
59% of the chances42%

The board read CBJ 3, VAN 4. The chances read CBJ 4.8, VAN 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+0.6
goals above expected
VAN3.41 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ4.82 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blue Jackets left 1.8 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. P2 05:28VANJ. DeBrusk0–1
  2. P2 06:46CBJK. Marchenko1–1
  3. P2 13:02CBJD. Voronkov2–1
  4. P2 19:03VAND. O'Connor2–2
  5. P3 06:17VANC. Garland2–3
  6. P3 09:47CBJK. Marchenko3–3
  7. P3 14:15VANB. Boeser3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
53 shots
3
Final
95 shots
VAN
42 shots
4
CBJ attackVAN attack
CBJ VAN Goal
53
shots · 3 in
42
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJVAN
2 / 9
2.14 xG
High danger
1 / 3
1.11 xG
0 / 19
2.02 xG
Medium
2 / 14
1.63 xG
1 / 42
0.66 xG
Low
1 / 38
0.68 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 2 of 9, VAN 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
K. Lankinen
+1.8
VAN · 29/32
D
E. Merzlikins
−0.6
CBJ · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks steal one from the Blue Jackets against the run of play

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 11–8no goals
    2ndshots 13–9
    1. 05:28VANJ. DeBrusk(D. O'Connor, A. Räty)0–1
    2. 06:46CBJK. Marchenko(D. Voronkov, D. Mateychuk)1–1
    3. 13:02CBJD. Voronkov(K. Marchenko, A. Fantilli)2–1
    4. 19:03VAND. O'Connor(Q. Hughes, F. Hronek)2–2
    3rdshots 8–7
    1. 06:17VANC. Garland(T. Myers, E. Pettersson)2–3
    2. 09:47CBJK. Marchenko(D. Voronkov, A. Fantilli)3–3
    3. 14:15VANB. Boeser(K. Sherwood, L. Reichel)3–4

    score reads CBJ–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.41
    VAN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.6
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.030
    VAN puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.82Expected goals3.41
    CBJ 59% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal24
    9High-danger chances3
    70All attempts (Corsi)55
    Adjusted for score: CBJ 56% · VAN 44%
    Faceoffs · VAN won21%off25%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CBJ2 / 9 · 2.14 xG
    VAN1 / 3 · 1.11 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CBJ0 / 19 · 2.02 xG
    VAN2 / 14 · 1.63 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CBJ1 / 42 · 0.66 xG
    VAN1 / 38 · 0.68 xG

    CBJ went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.02 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CBJ
    3 G · 4.82 xG · -1.8
    VAN
    4 G · 3.41 xG · +0.6
    0123456

    CBJ finished -1.8 against expected, VAN +0.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CBJ
    WRIST1/13
    SNAP0/23
    SLAP1/7
    BACKHAND0/6
    TIP IN0/3
    POKE1/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/17
    VAN
    WRIST2/23
    SNAP1/8
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/2
    POKE1/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/13
    CBJ
    VAN
    Off the rush
    1 G on 33
    3.27 xG
    2 G on 27
    1.78 xG
    Off rebounds
    2 G on 7
    1.06 xG
    2 G on 6
    0.82 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-13, VAN 2-for-23. VAN 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
    E. Merzlikins
    CBJ · 20/24 · .833
    -0.6
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/31.1+0.1
    Medium2/141.6-0.4
    Low1/380.7-0.3

    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

    K. Lankinen
    VAN · 29/32 · .906
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.1+0.1
    Medium0/192.0+2.0
    Low1/420.7-0.3

    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

    95 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CBJ
    53 shots
    3
    Final
    95 shots
    VAN
    42 shots
    4
    CBJ attackVAN attack
    CBJ VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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
    K. Marchenko
    #86 · R · CBJ
    2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:25 on ice · +1
    D. Voronkov
    #10 · L · CBJ
    1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 15:26 on ice · +1
    A. Fantilli
    #19 · C · CBJ
    0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 16:58 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Nov 8
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:09 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 2.7–2.5 Blue Jackets win with Columbus at 55% win probability. This is about as close to a toss-up as you'll find.

    Columbus owns the underlying play. At 52.0% 5v5 expected goals, the Blue Jackets generate more scoring chances than Vancouver's 44.0%. This 8-point gap isn't marginal; combined with their 51.0% Corsi to Vancouver's 46.0%, it signals territorial dominance. The Canucks are being outworked in every meaningful way.

    Yet Vancouver has the escape hatch: their 0.974 PDO means they're running cold on both shooting percentage and save percentage, making a reversion to league average highly likely. A -10 goal differential over their last 10 games confirms they're bleeding results. That margin can tighten fast when variance reverses.

    Boone Jenner is Columbus's engine at 0.98 expected goals per 60 minutes, with 11 goals and 21 assists. Two of those goals come from high-danger chances; his 9.6% shooting rate suggests that 11-goal total reflects genuine opportunity creation rather than unsustainable finishing. Mathieu Olivier amplifies the threat at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals and 9 assists, one high-danger. His 13.3% shooting rate—notably elevated—flags him as volatile; he's converting above his expected output.

    Vancouver's Filip Chytil leads in xG generation at 1.03 per 60 but has buried only 3 goals with 0 assists despite one high-danger conversion. His 15.0% shooting rate is elite; when he scores, it carries weight. Drew O'Connor provides counterweight at 0.85 xG/60 with 13 goals and 11 assists, including three high-danger goals. His 11.8% shooting rate is elevated but grounded in consistent production.

    The critical tension: Columbus controls play and should win volume, but Vancouver's talent—especially Chytil's efficiency and O'Connor's dual-threat output—keeps them in contention. If the Blue Jackets convert their xG advantage, they run away with it. If the Canucks' PDO normalizes before Columbus's dominance translates to goals, Vancouver creeps back.

    Execution and variance will decide this, not system. Columbus should win the play; the game itself belongs to whoever finishes cleaner.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CBJ 55%
    55%
    CBJ
    Model favorite
    55%
    45%
    CBJ50VAN

    CBJ by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CBJ 2.7–2.5 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
    CBJ← edge
    edge →VAN
    52.0%44.0%
    51.0%46.0%
    2.632.22
    2.432.81
    2.121.60
    1.982.56
    1.0030.974

    CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.974) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CBJ
    6-4-0
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    VAN
    4-6-0
    -10 GD · 2d rest
    1.003
    CBJ 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 Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Canucks are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CBJ
    Expected in goal
    J. Greaves
    2 days rest.840 last start
    Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    VAN
    Expected in goal
    K. Lankinen
    2 days rest.852 last start
    Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
    CBJ
    Boone Jenner11G 21A
    0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
    Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
    0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% 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