Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Sat, Nov 22 · the slate
Breakdown · EDM at FLA

Oilers pull away from the Panthers

FinalSat, Nov 22
EDMEdmonton Oilers6FLAFlorida Panthers3
The verdict · stolen

The Oilers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.88–5.43 and won anyway.

EDM 6 · FLA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:17 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 Panthers held underlying advantages—55% shot attempts, 5.43 expected goals versus Edmonton's 4.88—and lost 6-3. The victory hinged on execution, not possession.

Edmonton's goaltending was the separator. S. Skinner saved 2.4 goals above expected — his 0.921 SV% on 35 shots denied the Panthers' chances to close. D. Tarasov stopped all 12 shots for a perfect SV%. S. Bobrovsky's 0.765 SV% on 17 shots cost Florida 1.1 goals relative to expected.

Edmonton finished ruthlessly where it mattered. In the high-danger zone, they converted 3 of 7 chances (43%), while Florida managed 0 for 9. Edmonton also capitalized off the rush: 6 goals on 30 rush attempts.

Florida created more chances. They generated 9 high-danger looks to Edmonton's 7, and crashed the net for 10 rebound opportunities, converting 2. Yet they underperformed expected goals by 2.4, wasting quality. Matt Savoie's wrist shot from the wing (17:47, third period) marked where Edmonton's margin became secure.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 22
EDM
6
FLA
3

Oilers pull away from the Panthers

Chances 4.9 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
4.88
FLA
5.43
47% of the chances53%

The board read EDM 6, FLA 3. The chances read EDM 4.9, FLA 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+1.1
goals above expected
EDM4.88 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA5.43 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 2.4 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 00:25EDMJ. Roslovic1–0
  2. P1 06:30FLAA. Lundell1–1
  3. P1 07:06EDMJ. Roslovic2–1
  4. P1 13:58EDMM. Ekholm3–1
  5. P2 06:45EDMV. Podkolzin4–1
  6. P2 10:04FLAM. Samoskevich4–2
  7. P2 13:30FLAS. ReinhartPP4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
50 shots
6
Final
117 shots
FLA
67 shots
3
EDM attackFLA attack
EDM FLA Goal
50
shots · 6 in
67
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMFLA
3 / 7
2.16 xG
High danger
0 / 9
1.92 xG
2 / 16
1.94 xG
Medium
3 / 26
2.74 xG
1 / 39
0.78 xG
Low
0 / 47
0.78 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 9 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Tarasov
+4.9
FLA · 12/12
A
S. Skinner
+2.4
EDM · 35/38
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers pull away from 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 13–8
  1. 00:25EDMJ. Roslovic(E. Bouchard)1–0
  2. 06:30FLAA. Lundell(M. Samoskevich, S. Jones)1–1
  3. 07:06EDMJ. Roslovic(E. Bouchard)2–1
  4. 13:58EDMM. Ekholm(A. Henrique, D. Nurse)3–1
2ndshots 11–20
  1. 06:45EDMV. Podkolzin(L. Draisaitl, E. Bouchard)4–1
  2. 10:04FLAM. Samoskevich(U. Balinskis, S. Bennett)4–2
  3. 13:30FLAS. Reinhartpower play(A. Lundell, B. Marchand)4–3
3rdshots 7–10
  1. 17:20EDMC. McDavidempty net(M. Ekholm)5–3
  2. 17:47EDMM. Savoieempty net(M. Janmark, M. Ekholm)6–3

score reads EDM–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.88
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.060
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.88Expected goals5.43
FLA 53% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal38
7High-danger chances9
62All attempts (Corsi)82
Adjusted for score: EDM 37% · FLA 63%
Faceoffs · FLA won77%off47%neu38%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM3 / 7 · 2.16 xG
FLA0 / 9 · 1.92 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM2 / 16 · 1.94 xG
FLA3 / 26 · 2.74 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM1 / 39 · 0.78 xG
FLA0 / 47 · 0.78 xG

FLA went 0-for-9 from high danger on 1.92 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
6 G · 4.88 xG · +1.1
FLA
3 G · 5.43 xG · -2.4
01234567

EDM finished +1.1 against expected, FLA -2.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST5/20
SNAP1/10
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/8
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/12
FLA
WRIST0/36
SNAP0/6
BACKHAND1/9
TIP IN0/9
SLAP2/6
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/15
EDM
FLA
Off the rush
6 G on 30
3.39 xG
1 G on 46
3.40 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
1.01 xG
2 G on 10
1.36 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 5-for-20, FLA 0-for-36. EDM scored 6 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 · 35/38 · .921
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/91.9+1.9
Medium3/262.7-0.3
Low0/470.8+0.8

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

D. Tarasov
FLA · 12/12 · 1.000
+4.9
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/72.2-0.8
Medium2/161.9-0.1
Low1/390.8-0.2

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

S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 13/17 · .765
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/72.2-0.8
Medium2/161.9-0.1
Low1/390.8-0.2

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

117 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
50 shots
6
Final
117 shots
FLA
67 shots
3
EDM attackFLA attack
EDM FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, FLA 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
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 22:12 on ice · +5
M. Ekholm
#14 · D · EDM
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:37 on ice · +5
A. Lundell
#15 · C · FLA
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:33 on ice · -4
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 22
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:14 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 2.6-2.6 game with the Oilers at 50% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Edmonton owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Oilers generate 52.0% expected goals against Florida's 49.0%, suggesting higher-quality chances. But their 0.982 PDO indicates they're converting below trend; positive regression would turn that small edge into wins. Florida's shot-attempt advantage (52.0% Corsi to Edmonton's 50.0%) hasn't translated to the same expected-goal share, implying Edmonton is more efficient with volume.

The Panthers, though, are 6-3-1 in their last 10 games. Edmonton sits -16 in goal differential over the same span. Hot teams can beat spreadsheets, at least temporarily.

The goaltending adds uncertainty. Both S. Bobrovsky and C. Pickard are on back-to-backs, making it unclear whether either starts fresh.

Edmonton's offense flows through Connor McDavid (25 goals, 33 assists, 13.7% shooting), but Zach Hyman is the difference-maker. He's generating 1.23 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 13 assists—a sharp 13.0% shooting rate tied to 1 high-danger goal. When Hyman operates freely in space, Edmonton's metrics become wins. When he's hemmed in, Edmonton's underlying edge stalls.

Florida counters with Sam Bennett at 0.97 expected goals per 60, 18 goals and 19 assists. His 13.1% shooting rate suggests elite finishing that complements his volume. Brad Marchand (17 goals, 9 assists at 0.93 xG/60) adds depth, though his 19.5% shooting rate is unsustainable—the kind of number due to regress downward.

One team's edge lies in what they're supposed to do. The other's lies in what they've been doing recently. The even split reflects a genuine standoff: neither advantage has overtaken the other.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 50%
50%
EDM
Model favorite
50%
50%
EDM50FLA

EDM by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.6 FLA; 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 →FLA
52.0%49.0%
50.0%52.0%
2.642.48
2.472.56
2.131.98
2.292.21
0.9820.989

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.989) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
EDM
3-5-2
-16 GD · 1d rest
FLA
6-3-1
+3 GD · 1d rest
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • S. Bobrovsky is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • C. Pickard is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Panthers are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
  • The Oilers are underwater at -16 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
EDM
Expected in goal
C. Pickard
back-to-back.943 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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.

FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
back-to-back1.000 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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.

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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page