Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · DAL at EDM

Stars run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

DAL 8 · EDM 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:36 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

Dallas won 8-3, but the underlying numbers tell a more competitive story. The Stars controlled 63% of expected goals (4.23–2.48), validating the victory without the blowout margin. That five-goal gap owed to a 3.77-goal overperformance — Dallas converted at elite rates while Edmonton's goaltending faltered.

The dominance was real. Dallas generated 0.076 expected goals per shot against Edmonton's 0.049. In the high-danger zone, the Stars were clinical: three goals on seven chances (43%). Edmonton had three high-danger opportunities and buried none. Off the rush, Dallas scored four times on twenty-four transition attempts.

Edmonton's shot volume (46% of attempts) obscured their underlying weakness. The Oilers generated low-quality chances. S. Skinner's relief appearance tells the story: 4 saves on 8 shots (0.500 SV%), underperforming expected by 2.87 goals.

J. Oettinger was solid for Dallas, posting 22 saves on 25 shots (0.880 SV%, −0.52 vs expected). C. Pickard started for Edmonton with 18 saves on 22 shots (0.818 SV%, −0.90 vs expected) — respectable but insufficient.

Dallas's power play widened the gap. The Stars scored three goals on eleven attempts (1.83 expected goals). Edmonton crashed the net effectively, generating four rebound chances and converting two; Dallas matched their four rebounds but converted all four, a difference that defined the afternoon.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 25
DAL
8
EDM
3

Stars run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.2 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
4.23
EDM
2.48
63% of the chances37%

The board read DAL 8, EDM 3. The chances read DAL 4.2, EDM 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
+3.8
goals above expected
DAL4.23 expected · 8 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM2.48 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars scored 3.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:48DALJ. Benn1–0
  2. P1 10:51DALR. HintzPP2–0
  3. P1 15:24DALN. Bastian3–0
  4. P1 18:46DALS. Steel4–0
  5. P2 04:39EDMC. Clattenburg4–1
  6. P2 14:01DALJ. RobertsonPP5–1
  7. P2 15:36DALW. JohnstonPP6–1
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
41 shots
8
Final
78 shots
EDM
37 shots
3
DAL attackEDM attack
DAL EDM Goal
41
shots · 8 in
37
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALEDM
3 / 7
1.97 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.62 xG
4 / 16
1.84 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.43 xG
1 / 33
0.42 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.43 xG

The Stars buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
C. Pickard
+0.2
EDM · 18/22
C
S. Skinner
+0.2
EDM · 4/8
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars run the Oilers 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 8–5
  1. 03:48DALJ. Benn(W. Johnston, S. Steel)1–0
  2. 10:51DALR. Hintzpower play(M. Heiskanen, J. Robertson)2–0
  3. 15:24DALN. Bastian(R. Faksa, C. Blackwell)3–0
  4. 18:46DALS. Steel(J. Benn, W. Johnston)4–0
2ndshots 15–10
  1. 04:39EDMC. Clattenburg(T. Emberson, M. Janmark)4–1
  2. 14:01DALJ. Robertsonpower play(T. Seguin, W. Johnston)5–1
  3. 15:36DALW. Johnstonpower play(J. Robertson, T. Seguin)6–1
3rdshots 7–10
  1. 01:23EDME. Bouchard(V. Podkolzin, L. Draisaitl)6–2
  2. 08:21DALJ. Hryckowian(M. Bourque, V. Kolyachonok)7–2
  3. 09:31EDMJ. Roslovic(C. McDavid, M. Savoie)7–3
  4. 15:39DALN. Bastian(R. Faksa)8–3

score reads DAL–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.23
DAL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.084
DAL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
52.3%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.23Expected goals2.48
DAL 63% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal25
7High-danger chances3
56All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: DAL 45% · EDM 55%
Faceoffs · EDM won60%off25%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL3 / 7 · 1.97 xG
EDM1 / 3 · 0.62 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL4 / 16 · 1.84 xG
EDM1 / 12 · 1.43 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL1 / 33 · 0.42 xG
EDM1 / 36 · 0.43 xG

DAL went 4-for-16 from medium danger on 1.84 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
8 G · 4.23 xG · +3.8
EDM
3 G · 2.48 xG · +0.5
0123456789

DAL finished +3.8 against expected, EDM +0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
WRIST5/26
SNAP1/4
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND1/1
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED1/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/15
EDM
WRIST1/13
SNAP1/7
SLAP1/8
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/14
DAL
EDM
Off the rush
4 G on 24
2.76 xG
0 G on 16
1.33 xG
Off rebounds
4 G on 4
0.93 xG
2 G on 4
0.78 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 5-for-26, EDM 1-for-13. DAL scored 4 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 · 22/25 · .880
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.6-0.4
Medium1/121.4+0.4
Low1/360.4-0.6

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

C. Pickard
EDM · 18/22 · .818
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/72.0-1.0
Medium4/161.8-2.2
Low1/330.4-0.6

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

S. Skinner
EDM · 4/8 · .500
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/72.0-1.0
Medium4/161.8-2.2
Low1/330.4-0.6

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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DAL
41 shots
8
Final
78 shots
EDM
37 shots
3
DAL attackEDM attack
DAL EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, EDM 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. Johnston
#53 · C · DAL
1 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 17:59 on ice · +1
J. Robertson
#21 · L · DAL
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 16:57 on ice · -1
T. Seguin
#91 · C · DAL
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:06 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Nov 25
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:34 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 2.4 goals, Edmonton 2.6, and odds the Oilers at 53% to win. Call it a pick'em.

Dallas enters hot. The Stars are 7–2–1 in their last ten, riding points momentum that the underlying numbers have earned—they sit at 51.0% expected-goals share at 5v5. Edmonton, by contrast, is underwater. The Oilers have a -12 goal differential over the same stretch and trail at 52.0% xGoals, which sounds like an edge until you notice that Dallas owns 47.0% Corsi to Edmonton's 50.0%. The Oilers are dictating territory. They're just not converting.

That's where the regression watch matters. Edmonton's PDO of 0.982 is running cold—a sign-post for positive mean-reversion. Dallas at 1.024 is running hot and should expect regression in the other direction. Strip away the noise and you're left with two evenly matched teams separated by variance and recent run.

Zach Hyman is Edmonton's most dangerous operator: 1.23 xG/60, 14 goals, and he's taking high-danger chances (1 HD goal). Connor McDavid remains a force at 0.92 xG/60 with 25 goals and 33 assists, though his 13.7% shooting rate and 5 HD goals show he's been clinical, not carried by PDO. Jason Robertson mirrors McDavid's output (25G 21A) but at 0.96 xG/60 and a more modest 12.4% shooting—he's backed by process. Michael Bunting rounds the supporting cast at 0.83 xG/60 with 8 goals and 14 assists, though his 7.6% shooting hints at a player out of sync.

The territorial advantage belongs to Edmonton. The match belongs to nobody.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 53%
53%
EDM
Model favorite
47%
53%
DAL50EDM

EDM by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.4–2.6 EDM; 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 →EDM
51.0%52.0%
47.0%50.0%
2.362.64
2.292.47
2.072.13
1.682.29
1.0240.982

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 0.982) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DAL
7-2-1
+13 GD · 2d rest
EDM
4-4-2
-12 GD · 2d rest
1.024
DAL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Stars are the hotter team by points pace (7-2-1 in their last 10).
  • The Oilers are underwater at -12 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
DAL
Expected in goal
C. DeSmith
2 days rest.939 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
2 days rest.921 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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
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
Keep going

Where to next