Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
← Thu, Nov 20 · the slate
Breakdown · DAL at VAN

J. Oettinger stands tall as the Stars edge the Canucks

FinalThu, Nov 20
DALDallas Stars4VANVancouver Canucks2
The verdict · stolen

The Stars stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.73–5.37 and won anyway.

DAL 4 · VAN 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:01 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

Vancouver dominated this game and lost anyway. The Canucks held 59% of expected goals at 5v5 and controlled the shot board 60–40 (36–24), yet Dallas won 4–2. This was a heist built on goaltending disparity.

J. Oettinger was the separator. He stopped 34 of 36 shots for a 0.944 save percentage, posting 3.37 goals above expected. K. Lankinen stopped 20 of 24 shots (0.833 SV%). On high-danger chances—the clearest scoring opportunities—Oettinger saved 92% of 12 attempts while Lankinen faced 7.

Vancouver's wasteful efficiency cost them. They generated 12 high-danger chances versus Dallas's 7 yet lost despite a 5.37–3.73 expected goals advantage. They created 8 rebound opportunities and converted one; Dallas manufactured 3 and converted none. The Canucks crashed and created quality looks. Oettinger simply didn't let them in.

Dallas capitalized on rush play, scoring 3 goals on 20 attempts. That rushing efficiency defined what separated a dominant territorial game from a Stars victory.

Three Stars

  • M. Heiskanen (DAL) — 1A in 28:13
  • E. Pettersson (VAN) — 1G in 24:43
  • J. DeBrusk (VAN) — 1A in 20:34

Final: DAL 4 – VAN 2

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 20
DAL
4
VAN
2

J. Oettinger stands tall as the Stars edge the Canucks

Chances 3.7 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
3.73
VAN
5.37
41% of the chances59%

The board read DAL 4, VAN 2. The chances read DAL 3.7, VAN 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
+0.3
goals above expected
DAL3.73 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN5.37 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks 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 00:55DALM. Bourque1–0
  2. P1 03:06VANL. Karlsson1–1
  3. P1 07:44DALJ. Robertson2–1
  4. P1 14:25VANE. PetterssonPP2–2
  5. P3 10:47DALC. Blackwell3–2
  6. P3 18:29DALM. Rantanen4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
33 shots
4
Final
89 shots
VAN
56 shots
2
DAL attackVAN attack
DAL VAN Goal
33
shots · 4 in
56
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALVAN
1 / 7
2.03 xG
High danger
1 / 12
2.69 xG
2 / 12
1.29 xG
Medium
0 / 17
1.80 xG
1 / 23
0.42 xG
Low
1 / 47
0.87 xG

High-danger looks: DAL 1 of 7, VAN 1 of 12.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Oettinger
+3.4
DAL · 34/36
D
K. Lankinen
−0.3
VAN · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Oettinger stands tall as the Stars edge the Canucks

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 8–10
  1. 00:55DALM. Bourque(J. Hryckowian)1–0
  2. 03:06VANL. Karlsson1–1
  3. 07:44DALJ. Robertson2–1
  4. 14:25VANE. Petterssonpower play(J. DeBrusk, K. Sherwood)2–2
2ndshots 6–15no goals
    3rdshots 10–11
    1. 10:47DALC. Blackwell(R. Faksa, O. Bäck)3–2
    2. 18:29DALM. Rantanen(J. Benn, M. Heiskanen)4–2

    score reads DAL–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.73
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.069
    DAL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    35.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.73Expected goals5.37
    VAN 59% of the chance quality
    24Shots on goal36
    7High-danger chances12
    42All attempts (Corsi)76
    Adjusted for score: DAL 34% · VAN 66%
    Faceoffs · VAN won79%off33%neu53%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DAL1 / 7 · 2.03 xG
    VAN1 / 12 · 2.69 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DAL2 / 12 · 1.29 xG
    VAN0 / 17 · 1.80 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DAL1 / 23 · 0.42 xG
    VAN1 / 47 · 0.87 xG

    VAN went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 1.80 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DAL
    4 G · 3.73 xG · +0.3
    VAN
    2 G · 5.37 xG · -3.4
    0123456

    DAL finished +0.3 against expected, VAN -3.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DAL
    WRIST3/20
    SNAP0/5
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BACKHAND1/1
    BAT0/0
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/9
    VAN
    WRIST1/15
    SNAP0/23
    SLAP0/9
    TIP IN0/3
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    BAT1/2
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/20
    DAL
    VAN
    Off the rush
    3 G on 20
    2.29 xG
    1 G on 33
    3.28 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.54 xG
    1 G on 8
    1.23 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 3-for-20, VAN 1-for-15. DAL 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
    J. Oettinger
    DAL · 34/36 · .944
    +3.4
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/122.7+1.7
    Medium0/171.8+1.8
    Low1/470.9-0.1

    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 · 20/24 · .833
    -0.3
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/72.0+1.0
    Medium2/121.3-0.7
    Low1/230.4-0.6

    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

    89 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DAL
    33 shots
    4
    Final
    89 shots
    VAN
    56 shots
    2
    DAL attackVAN attack
    DAL VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL 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
    M. Heiskanen
    #4 · D · DAL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 28:13 on ice · +1
    E. Pettersson
    #40 · C · VAN
    1 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 24:43 on ice · -2
    J. DeBrusk
    #74 · L · VAN
    0 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 20:34 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Nov 20
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:59 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 Dallas to win 2.6 to 2.4 in expected goals, with the Stars at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Dallas owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Stars generate 51.0% expected goals share versus Vancouver's 44.0%, a gap that extends to Corsi territory (47.0% for Dallas). Yet the Canucks have been underwater: minus-6 goal differential over their last 10, which speaks to an unsustainable PDO of 0.974. Dallas, meanwhile, runs hot at 1.024, suggesting both teams have regression heading their way.

    The matchup shapes around Dallas's forward efficiency. Jason Robertson carries 0.96 expected goals per 60 minutes with 25 goals and 21 assists—he's also notched 2 high-danger chances and sits at 12.4% shooting. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8G 14A) offers secondary production at just 7.6% shooting, indicating volume ahead. For Vancouver, Filip Chytil (1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goal) presents a spike in per-60 production despite meager goal totals, while Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting) has been steadier. Tyler Myers is Dallas's defensive weak link; Victor Mancini is Vancouver's.

    One complication: J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back. If Dallas starts its backup or leans on a fatigued Oettinger, the dynamic shifts. The underlying play might not show up on the scoreboard if Dallas can't sustain pressure through three periods.

    This is a matchup where process and results could diverge sharply. Dallas should win the underlying battle. Whether it converts that into actual goals is the open question—and why the model sits right at the midline.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DAL 54%
    54%
    DAL
    Model favorite
    54%
    46%
    DAL50VAN

    DAL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.6–2.4 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
    DAL← edge
    edge →VAN
    51.0%44.0%
    47.0%46.0%
    2.362.22
    2.292.81
    2.071.60
    1.682.56
    1.0240.974

    DAL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 0.974) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    DAL
    6-2-2
    +10 GD · 1d rest
    VAN
    4-4-2
    -6 GD · 2d rest
    1.024
    DAL 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 Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Canucks are underwater at -6 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
    DAL
    Expected in goal
    J. Oettinger
    back-to-back.864 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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.

    VAN
    Expected in goal
    J. Patera
    2 days rest.825 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
    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
    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