Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · OTT at SJS

Senators run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · SJS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:18 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 Senators' 3-2 victory was closer than the underlying numbers suggested: they created 10 high-danger chances to the Sharks' 1. A. Nedeljkovic's 0.889 save percentage overperformed by 0.97 goals, keeping the Sharks competitive despite the shot onslaught.

The Senators controlled 66% of 5v5 expected goals (3.97–2.09), while the Sharks managed just 41% of shot attempts (19–27). Ottawa's dominance was complete.

Tim Stützle's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 13:22) was the turning point. The Senators' rush offense was devastating: 2 goals on 28 chances. They also engineered 3 rebound opportunities, converting one by crashing the net hard.

L. Ullmark stopped 17 of 19 (0.895 SV%), solid but unremarkable. A. Nedeljkovic faced the onslaught and held, posting 24 saves and a 0.889 mark that belied his performance against Ottawa's shot volume and quality.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 22
OTT
3
SJS
2

Senators run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.0 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.97
SJS
2.09
66% of the chances35%

The board read OTT 3, SJS 2. The chances read OTT 4.0, SJS 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−1.0
goals above expected
OTT3.97 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS2.09 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 07:50OTTD. CozensPP1–0
  2. P1 16:06SJSJ. KlingbergPP1–1
  3. P2 07:47SJSB. Goodrow1–2
  4. P2 18:38OTTF. Zetterlund2–2
  5. P3 13:22OTTT. Stützle3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
42 shots
3
Final
70 shots
SJS
28 shots
2
OTT attackSJS attack
OTT SJS Goal
42
shots · 3 in
28
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTSJS
1 / 10
2.22 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.22 xG
2 / 10
1.02 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.45 xG
0 / 37
0.72 xG
Low
1 / 24
0.41 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 1 of 10, SJS 0 of 1.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Nedeljkovic
+1.0
SJS · 24/27
C
L. Ullmark
+0.1
OTT · 17/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 5–6
  1. 07:50OTTD. Cozenspower play(T. Stützle, J. Sanderson)1–0
  2. 16:06SJSJ. Klingbergpower play(M. Celebrini, W. Smith)1–1
2ndshots 15–7
  1. 07:47SJSB. Goodrow(A. Wennberg, M. Ferraro)1–2
  2. 18:38OTTF. Zetterlund(T. Kleven)2–2
3rdshots 7–6
  1. 13:22OTTT. Stützle(N. Cousins, D. Batherson)3–2

score reads OTT–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.97
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.999
OTT puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
60.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.97Expected goals2.09
OTT 66% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal19
10High-danger chances1
57All attempts (Corsi)37
Adjusted for score: OTT 61% · SJS 39%
Faceoffs · SJS won38%off50%neu29%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT1 / 10 · 2.22 xG
SJS0 / 1 · 0.22 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT2 / 10 · 1.02 xG
SJS1 / 12 · 1.45 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 37 · 0.72 xG
SJS1 / 24 · 0.41 xG

OTT went 1-for-10 from high danger on 2.22 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 3.97 xG · -1.0
SJS
2 G · 2.09 xG · -0.1
012345

OTT finished -1.0 against expected, SJS -0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST2/25
SLAP0/6
SNAP0/5
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/15
SJS
WRIST1/17
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/2
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED1/2
OTHER0/9
OTT
SJS
Off the rush
2 G on 28
2.83 xG
1 G on 18
1.55 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.50 xG
1 G on 2
0.25 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 2-for-25, SJS 1-for-17. OTT 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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 17/19 · .895
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/121.4+0.5
Low1/240.4-0.6

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

A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 24/27 · .889
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/102.2+1.2
Medium2/101.0-1.0
Low0/370.7+0.7

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

70 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
42 shots
3
Final
70 shots
SJS
28 shots
2
OTT attackSJS attack
OTT SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
T. Stützle
#18 · C · OTT
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:16 on ice
J. Sanderson
#85 · D · OTT
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:46 on ice · +1
A. Wennberg
#21 · C · SJS
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:45 on ice · +1
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, 5:17 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 2.6–2.3 Ottawa win with a 55% probability for the Senators—essentially a coin flip with a modest edge. This is as close to a pick'em as projections produce.

The Senators dominate the underlying play. They generate 56.0% of expected goals at 5v5, while the Sharks manage 48.0%. That 8-point advantage suggests Ottawa should be winning puck battles and creating better chances. In possession, the Senators control 53.0% of Corsi at 5v5 against 47.0% for San Jose, meaning the game will tilt toward Ottawa territory.

Yet the model projects only 55% win probability for the Senators. For a team with their xG edge, this is restrained—a sign that variance and execution will decide the game.

Both goaltenders are on back-to-back schedules. Y. Askarov for the Sharks and L. Ullmark for the Senators face the fatigue factor—watch whether either team deploys a backup or trusts a tired starter.

Brady Tkachuk has been Ottawa's offensive engine, averaging 1.19 xG per 60 at 5v5 and carrying a 7.5% shooting percentage alongside 11 goals and 20 assists. He represents the Senators' most dangerous threat at even strength. Dylan Cozens adds 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals, 15 assists, and a 9.5% shooting rate.

San Jose leans on Pavol Regenda (1.10 xG/60, 5 goals, 1 assist) and Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists). Regenda is marked as likely out, which shifts San Jose's scoring burden. Chernyshov's 15.0% shooting percentage suggests strong conversion, but his underlying rate of 0.91 xG/60 shows the Sharks' depth isn't generating high-danger looks.

The Sharks' defensive liability is Chernyshov, who drags down the backend's efficiency when on ice. Ottawa's weak link is Nick Jensen, meaning San Jose should direct traffic toward him when the Senators forecheck.

Both squads are shallow in high-danger scoring—neither has strong rates beyond their top-line forwards—which means goaltending temperament and fatigue become deciding factors. Ottawa's territorial advantage is real, but variance and execution-rate swings level the field.

The model's 55% call is sound: the Senators have an edge, but it's razor-thin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 55%
55%
OTT
Model favorite
55%
45%
OTT50SJS

OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.3 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
OTT← edge
edge →SJS
56.0%48.0%
53.0%47.0%
2.662.33
2.122.56
2.181.99
1.992.32
0.9930.998

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.998) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
OTT
5-2-3
-1 GD · 1d rest
SJS
7-2-1
+6 GD · 1d rest
0.993
OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • L. Ullmark is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
back-to-back.920 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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.

SJS
Expected in goal
Y. Askarov
back-to-back.912 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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