Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Wed, Nov 26 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at VGK

Senators steal one from the Golden Knights against the run of play

Final / OTWed, Nov 26
OTTOttawa Senators4VGKVegas Golden Knights3
The verdict · stolen

The Senators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.62–5.39 and won anyway.

OTT 4 · VGK 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:04 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 expected goals were 67-33 in Vegas' favor, but the score was 4-3 for Ottawa. That's a heist.

Vegas controlled the ice. They fired 35 shots on net to Ottawa's 22 and held 61 percent of shot attempts. Their efficiency was sharper: 0.086 expected goals per shot against Ottawa's 0.048. High-danger chances finished 9-3. The Golden Knights generated 5.39 expected goals to Ottawa's 2.62 and still left empty-handed.

L. Ullmark, Ottawa's goaltender, is why. He stopped 2.39 goals above expected, posting a 0.914 save percentage on 35 shots faced. A. Schmid in Vegas salvaged 19 saves on 22 shots at 0.864 SV%.

The rush game was a split: Vegas scored twice on 36 attempts, Ottawa twice on 24. Quality matters more than volume. Vegas converted when it counted; Ottawa capitalized when it shouldn't have.

Shane Pinto's wrist shot from the slot in the shootout sent Vegas home with nothing. Vegas controlled 67 percent of expected goals and still found itself in overtime. That shouldn't happen, and it rarely does to better teams.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 26
OTT
4
VGK
3

Senators steal one from the Golden Knights against the run of play

Chances 2.6 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
2.62
VGK
5.39
33% of the chances67%

The board read OTT 4, VGK 3. The chances read OTT 2.6, VGK 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+1.4
goals above expected
OTT2.62 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VGK5.39 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Golden Knights 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 00:51OTTS. Pinto1–0
  2. P1 13:04OTTJ. SandersonPP2–0
  3. P1 16:52VGKB. Howden2–1
  4. P1 19:43OTTD. Batherson3–1
  5. P2 02:09VGKJ. Eichel3–2
  6. P3 06:40VGKM. StonePP3–3
  7. SO 00:00OTTS. PintoPP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
43 shots
4
Final
97 shots
VGK
54 shots
3
OTT attackVGK attack
OTT VGK Goal
43
shots · 4 in
54
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTVGK
1 / 3
0.87 xG
High danger
2 / 9
2.75 xG
1 / 8
0.97 xG
Medium
1 / 21
2.15 xG
1 / 44
0.77 xG
Low
0 / 33
0.50 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 1 of 3, VGK 2 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
L. Ullmark
+2.4
OTT · 32/35
D
A. Schmid
−0.4
VGK · 19/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators steal one from the Golden Knights against the run of play

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 10–11
  1. 00:51OTTS. Pinto(J. Sanderson, C. Giroux)1–0
  2. 13:04OTTJ. Sandersonpower play(C. Giroux, T. Stützle)2–0
  3. 16:52VGKB. Howden(M. Marner, S. Theodore)2–1
  4. 19:43OTTD. Batherson(T. Stützle, J. Sanderson)3–1
2ndshots 7–11
  1. 02:09VGKJ. Eichel(I. Barbashev, B. Bowman)3–2
3rdshots 4–11
  1. 06:40VGKM. Stonepower play3–3
OTshots 1–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00OTTS. Pintopower play3–3

    score reads OTT–VGK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.62
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.4
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.007
    OTT puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    46.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.62Expected goals5.39
    VGK 67% of the chance quality
    22Shots on goal35
    3High-danger chances9
    55All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: OTT 43% · VGK 57%
    Faceoffs · VGK won64%off47%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT1 / 3 · 0.87 xG
    VGK2 / 9 · 2.75 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT1 / 8 · 0.97 xG
    VGK1 / 21 · 2.15 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT1 / 44 · 0.77 xG
    VGK0 / 33 · 0.50 xG

    VGK went 1-for-21 from medium danger on 2.15 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    4 G · 2.62 xG · +1.4
    VGK
    3 G · 5.39 xG · -2.4
    0123456

    OTT finished +1.4 against expected, VGK -2.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    WRIST1/19
    SLAP1/9
    SNAP1/6
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/15
    VGK
    WRIST1/27
    SLAP0/5
    SNAP0/7
    BACKHAND2/4
    TIP IN0/5
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/12
    OTT
    VGK
    Off the rush
    2 G on 24
    2.16 xG
    2 G on 36
    4.13 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.22 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.09 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-19, VGK 1-for-27. 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 · 32/35 · .914
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.8+0.8
    Medium1/212.1+1.1
    Low0/330.5+0.5

    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. Schmid
    VGK · 19/22 · .864
    -0.4
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.9-0.1
    Medium1/81.0-0.0
    Low1/440.8-0.2

    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

    97 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    43 shots
    4
    Final
    97 shots
    VGK
    54 shots
    3
    OTT attackVGK attack
    OTT VGK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, VGK 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
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 28:01 on ice · +1
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 23:31 on ice · +1
    C. Giroux
    #28 · R · OTT
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:50 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Nov 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:46 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 2.4–2.4 game with the Golden Knights at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    At five-on-five, Ottawa owns a 56.0% expected goals share and a 53.0% Corsi percentage—both advantages. Vegas counters with 54.0% xG% and 52.0% Corsi%, nearly matching the Senators' process edge. The difference between these teams, in short, is marginal enough that short-term variance will decide this.

    Vegas's recent results back that out. The Golden Knights are -5 in goal differential over their last ten, suggesting they've played above their true talent. Their PDO of 0.983 is running cold and due for positive regression. Ottawa's 0.993 leaves them closer to neutral; they haven't been saved or burned by luck quite as severely.

    Both goalies face a back-to-back. C. Lindbom starts for Ottawa, L. Meriläinen for Vegas—watch for a tired starter or a backup called up, either of which tilts the leverage game.

    The real separation lives in special talent. Brady Tkachuk carries 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes and has converted at 7.5%, already a 2-HD-goal performer. Dylan Cozens sits at 1.00 xG/60 with a 9.5% shooting rate and 13 goals, suggesting room to regress or to stay hot depending on which night shows up. For Vegas, Brandon Saad generates 0.91 xG/60 on a 4.1% finish and Tomas Hertl posts 0.88 xG/60 at 4.3%—both well below league average, both capable of correction in either direction.

    Defensively, Ottawa's structural weak link is Nick Jensen; Vegas's is Rasmus Andersson. Against a Tkachuk capable of 1.19 xG/60, that matters. Against a Saad running at half-league shooting rate, it matters less.

    What decides this game is which team's luck flips first. Vegas is due; Ottawa is hovering near true talent. That slight tilt toward positive regression in Vegas, combined with Tkachuk's elite scoring threat and Ottawa's defensive exposure, keeps this as close to even as the model says: a coin flip with the Golden Knights holding the marginally better case.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 51%
    51%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    OTT50VGK

    VGK by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.4–2.4 VGK; 19% 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 →VGK
    56.0%54.0%
    53.0%52.0%
    2.662.52
    2.122.11
    2.182.12
    1.992.10
    0.9930.983

    OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.983) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    OTT
    5-2-3
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    VGK
    3-3-4
    -5 GD · 1d rest
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • C. Lindbom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • L. Meriläinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Golden Knights are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Meriläinen
    back-to-back.909 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.

    VGK
    Expected in goal
    C. Lindbom
    back-to-back.857 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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
    VGK
    Brandon Saad3G 6A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
    Tomas Hertl5G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page