Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Sat, Nov 8 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at SJS

Y. Askarov stands tall as the Sharks edge the Panthers

FinalSat, Nov 8
FLAFlorida Panthers1SJSSan Jose Sharks3
The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.39–3.78 and won anyway.

FLA 1 · SJS 3
◆ 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 Sharks won the game San Jose's underlying numbers suggested was close — but Florida's suggested the Panthers should have won. San Jose beat Florida 3-1 despite a 4.39–3.78 expected goals deficit.

The gap tells the real story: Florida generated far higher-quality chances (7 high-danger opportunities to 5), but couldn't convert any of them. San Jose was ruthless on the rush, scoring 2 goals on 17 chances.

Florida controlled territory and shot volume. The Panthers took 39 shots to San Jose's 23. But the Sharks generated more efficient danger — 0.088 expected goals per shot versus 0.056. San Jose turned quality into goals; Florida didn't.

Y. Askarov was exceptional. The San Jose goaltender stopped 38 of 39 shots (0.974 SV%) and saved 3.39 goals above expected. He kept Florida's superior play off the scoreboard.

D. Tarasov (Florida) stopped 20 of 22 shots (0.909 SV%) and saved 1.78 goals above expected — solid, not enough. The Panthers generated the looks; Tarasov delivered. The roster didn't.

Alexander Wennberg's wrist shot from the high slot in the third period (19:09) marked the moment San Jose seized control.

The takeaway: Florida's talent created opportunities its scoring touch couldn't finish, while San Jose executed under pressure. The Panthers generated 0/7 on high-danger chances. The Sharks made theirs matter. That's the difference between a close game on paper and a 3-1 final.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 8
FLA
1
SJS
3

Y. Askarov stands tall as the Sharks edge the Panthers

Chances 4.4 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
4.39
SJS
3.78
54% of the chances46%

The board read FLA 1, SJS 3. The chances read FLA 4.4, SJS 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
−0.8
goals above expected
SJS3.78 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA4.39 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 3.4 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 17:25SJSM. Celebrini0–1
  2. P2 03:06SJSA. Gaudette0–2
  3. P2 03:34FLAB. Marchand1–2
  4. P3 19:09SJSA. WennbergEN1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
58 shots
1
Final
89 shots
SJS
31 shots
3
FLA attackSJS attack
FLA SJS Goal
58
shots · 1 in
31
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLASJS
0 / 7
1.67 xG
High danger
1 / 5
2.13 xG
1 / 17
1.83 xG
Medium
2 / 10
1.27 xG
0 / 54
0.89 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.37 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
Y. Askarov
+3.4
SJS · 38/39
A
D. Tarasov
+1.8
FLA · 20/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Y. Askarov stands tall as the Sharks edge the Panthers

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 6–14
  1. 17:25SJSM. Celebrini(W. Smith, V. Desharnais)0–1
2ndshots 20–3
  1. 03:06SJSA. Gaudette(D. Orlov, T. Liljegren)0–2
  2. 03:34FLAB. Marchand(A. Lundell, E. Luostarinen)1–2
3rdshots 13–6
  1. 19:09SJSA. Wennbergempty net(C. Graf, W. Smith)1–3

score reads FLA–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.78
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.057
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
35.5%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.39Expected goals3.78
FLA 54% of the chance quality
39Shots on goal23
7High-danger chances5
78All attempts (Corsi)43
Adjusted for score: FLA 67% · SJS 33%
Faceoffs · SJS won33%off44%neu65%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA0 / 7 · 1.67 xG
SJS1 / 5 · 2.13 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA1 / 17 · 1.83 xG
SJS2 / 10 · 1.27 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA0 / 54 · 0.89 xG
SJS0 / 28 · 0.37 xG

FLA went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.67 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
1 G · 4.39 xG · -3.4
SJS
3 G · 3.78 xG · -0.8
012345

FLA finished -3.4 against expected, SJS -0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST0/39
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND1/5
SNAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/20
SJS
WRIST2/20
TIP IN1/5
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/12
FLA
SJS
Off the rush
0 G on 34
2.86 xG
2 G on 17
1.23 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.73 xG
0 G on 3
0.44 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-39, SJS 2-for-20. 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
D. Tarasov
FLA · 20/22 · .909
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/52.1+1.1
Medium2/101.3-0.7
Low0/280.4+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

Y. Askarov
SJS · 38/39 · .974
+3.4
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.7+1.7
Medium1/171.8+0.8
Low0/540.9+0.9

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
58 shots
1
Final
89 shots
SJS
31 shots
3
FLA attackSJS attack
FLA SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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
W. Smith
#2 · C · SJS
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:37 on ice · +2
D. Orlov
#9 · D · SJS
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:47 on ice · +1
A. Lundell
#15 · C · FLA
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:28 on ice
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, 3:10 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 2.5–2.6 goal spread favoring Florida, with San Jose at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The underlying metrics explain why. Florida edges San Jose in expected goals share—49.0% to 48.0%—and dominates possession at 52.0% Corsi versus 47.0%. But San Jose has gotten lucky. The Sharks' PDO of 0.998 means they're finishing at rates their shot quality doesn't support, while Florida's 0.989 suggests results have lagged underlying performance. That luck gap matters.

Possession alone doesn't decide games, but it concentrates opportunity. Florida's territorial advantage should translate to more scoring chances, fewer defensive sequences for their goaltender. The question is whether the Panthers can convert that edge into goals.

The separation lives in individual performance. Sam Bennett is Florida's offensive core: 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes, 18 goals, 19 assists, and 6 high-danger goals. His 13.1% shooting rate hints at untapped conversion upside. Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17 goals, 9 assists) is more efficient; his 19.5% shooting rate and 3 high-danger goals reflect discipline over volume.

San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, who posts the highest expected goals rate on the ice at 1.10 per 60. His 5 goals (2 high-danger), 1 assist, and 16.1% shooting all align with his underlying performance. Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists) has 1 high-danger goal and a 15.0% shooting rate, respectable despite limited high-danger looks.

The Sharks' fortunate PDO won't last. San Jose's finishing or goaltending will regress; Florida's underlying numbers should eventually reward them. But regression takes time, and this game won't wait for the season to balance out. Florida should win more often. San Jose is the right bet at 51%.

Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

SJS 51%
51%
SJS
Model favorite
49%
51%
FLA50SJS

SJS by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 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
FLA← edge
edge →SJS
49.0%48.0%
52.0%47.0%
2.482.33
2.562.56
1.981.99
2.212.32
0.9890.998

FLA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.998) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
FLA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
SJS
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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