Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
← Sun, Nov 30 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at DAL

Stars pull away from the Senators

FinalSun, Nov 30
OTTOttawa Senators1DALDallas Stars6
The verdict · coin flip

The Stars won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

OTT 1 · DAL 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:26 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's 6-1 victory masked a statistical puzzle: the Senators held the expected-goals edge, 3.43 to 3.24, yet left empty-handed. The Stars' margin came from variance, not dominance.

The damage split cleanly. Dallas overperformed its expected goals by 2.76; Ottawa underperformed by 2.43. Together, those five goals of variance created the gap. C. DeSmith stopped 2.43 goals above expected; L. Ullmark surrendered 2.76 more than expected.

Dallas's execution was clinical. They converted 50% of their high-danger chances (3 of 6) and were lethal off the rush—three goals on 19 attempts. The power play added two goals on nine shots. Meanwhile, Ottawa generated eight high-danger chances and seven rebound opportunities without converting either.

W. Johnston was the catalyst. His snap shot from the slot (15:41, third period) punctuated Dallas's efficiency; he finished with 3 goals and 1 assist in 17:56. J. Robertson added 1 goal and 2 assists in 18:20. M. Rantanen collected 3 assists in 17:41.

Dallas controlled 62% of shot attempts (26 to 16 on goal). The Senators created chances—high-danger looks, second-chance opportunities—and finished with one goal on a night when the numbers suggested a coin flip. That gap between underlying play and the scoreboard is what Dallas sold: precision, fortune, and a goaltender who remembered how to make saves.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 30
OTT
1
DAL
6

Stars pull away from the Senators

Chances 3.4 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Stars took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.43
DAL
3.24
52% of the chances49%

The board read OTT 1, DAL 6. The chances read OTT 3.4, DAL 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
+2.8
goals above expected
DAL3.24 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.43 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars scored 2.8 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. P2 01:58DALM. Bourque0–1
  2. P2 08:36OTTJ. Sanderson1–1
  3. P2 09:20DALJ. Robertson1–2
  4. P2 15:33DALW. Johnston1–3
  5. P3 02:52DALW. JohnstonPP1–4
  6. P3 07:24DALJ. Benn1–5
  7. P3 15:41DALW. JohnstonPP1–6
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
36 shots
1
Final
63 shots
DAL
27 shots
6
OTT attackDAL attack
OTT DAL Goal
36
shots · 1 in
27
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTDAL
1 / 8
1.87 xG
High danger
3 / 6
1.77 xG
0 / 11
1.21 xG
Medium
3 / 12
1.27 xG
0 / 28
0.35 xG
Low
0 / 18
0.20 xG

The Stars buried 3 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. DeSmith
+2.4
DAL · 15/16
F
L. Ullmark
−2.8
OTT · 20/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars pull away from the Senators

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 7–5no goals
    2ndshots 4–6
    1. 01:58DALM. Bourque(I. Lyubushkin, O. Bäck)0–1
    2. 08:36OTTJ. Sanderson(D. Perron, N. Cousins)1–1
    3. 09:20DALJ. Robertson1–2
    4. 15:33DALW. Johnston(M. Rantanen, J. Robertson)1–3
    3rdshots 5–15
    1. 02:52DALW. Johnstonpower play(M. Rantanen, R. Hintz)1–4
    2. 07:24DALJ. Benn(M. Rantanen, W. Johnston)1–5
    3. 15:41DALW. Johnstonpower play(R. Hintz, J. Robertson)1–6

    score reads OTT–DAL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.24
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.8
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.145
    DAL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    43.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.43Expected goals3.24
    OTT 52% of the chance quality
    16Shots on goal26
    8High-danger chances6
    47All attempts (Corsi)36
    Adjusted for score: OTT 61% · DAL 39%
    Faceoffs · DAL won62%off46%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT1 / 8 · 1.87 xG
    DAL3 / 6 · 1.77 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT0 / 11 · 1.21 xG
    DAL3 / 12 · 1.27 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT0 / 28 · 0.35 xG
    DAL0 / 18 · 0.20 xG

    DAL went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.27 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    1 G · 3.43 xG · -2.4
    DAL
    6 G · 3.24 xG · +2.8
    01234567

    OTT finished -2.4 against expected, DAL +2.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    SNAP0/17
    WRIST1/8
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/5
    TIP IN0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/11
    DAL
    SNAP4/18
    WRIST1/3
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/0
    TIP IN1/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/9
    OTT
    DAL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 21
    2.09 xG
    3 G on 19
    2.30 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    1.24 xG
    1 G on 1
    0.17 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 0-for-17, DAL 4-for-18. 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
    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 20/26 · .769
    -2.8
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/61.8-1.2
    Medium3/121.3-1.7
    Low0/180.2+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

    C. DeSmith
    DAL · 15/16 · .938
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/81.9+0.9
    Medium0/111.2+1.2
    Low0/280.3+0.3

    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

    63 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    36 shots
    1
    Final
    63 shots
    DAL
    27 shots
    6
    OTT attackDAL attack
    OTT DAL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, DAL 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
    3 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:56 on ice · +1
    J. Robertson
    #21 · L · DAL
    1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:20 on ice · +2
    M. Rantanen
    #96 · R · DAL
    0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 17:41 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Nov 30
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:23 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 2.5 goals for Ottawa, 2.4 for Dallas, with the Senators at 52% win probability. This genuinely is a pick'em.

    The Senators have earned the edge in underlying play. They generate 56.0% of the 5v5 expected goals and control the Corsi at 53.0%—territorial domination that usually translates to better shot volume. Yet Dallas is right there in the win column, because the Stars' PDO of 1.024 is running unsustainably hot. Regression is coming; the question is when.

    The goaltending setup adds noise. J. Oettinger handles Dallas's back-to-back, either starting tired or sitting entirely for a backup.

    Brady Tkachuk is Ottawa's engine: 1.19 xG/60, 11 goals, 20 assists, 2 high-danger markers, and a 7.5% shooting rate that trails elite finishers. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13 goals, 15 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 9.5% shooting) adds teeth with crisp conversion. Jason Robertson leads Dallas at 0.96 xG/60 with 25 goals, 21 assists, and 2 high-danger scores—efficient finishing despite the modest volume metrics. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8 goals, 14 assists, 7.6% shooting) provides secondary depth.

    The matchup simplifies to this: Ottawa must contain Robertson's volume while fixing the Nick Jensen liability in its own end. Dallas mirrors the problem, managing Tkachuk's workload against the Tyler Myers defensive weak link. Both teams sit at 0% on high-danger and rebound-goal rates—analytically implausible at scale—suggesting both will regress upward as variance normalizes.

    The model isn't hedging—it's calling a true toss-up. Slight edge to Ottawa's underlying numbers, slight edge to Dallas's current results. Which holds? That's the game.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 52%
    52%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    OTT50DAL

    OTT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.5–2.4 DAL; 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 →DAL
    56.0%51.0%
    53.0%47.0%
    2.662.36
    2.122.29
    2.182.07
    1.991.68
    0.9931.024

    OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    OTT
    6-3-1
    +4 GD · 2d rest
    DAL
    8-1-1
    +20 GD · 1d rest
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.024
    DAL 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 51.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Meriläinen
    2 days rest.871 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DAL
    Expected in goal
    J. Oettinger
    back-to-back.900 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.

    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page