Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
Breakdown · SEA at EDM

Oilers pull away from the Kraken

The verdict · coin flip

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

SEA 4 · EDM 9
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:56 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

Expected goals called this nearly even — 5.20 to 5.08, an Oilers edge so slim it barely registers as an advantage. The scoreboard said 9–4. Edmonton's outperformance of 3.80 goals above xG explains the chasm.

C. Pickard (EDM) stopped 1.08 goals above expected while J. Daccord (SEA) gave up 2.72 more than expected, a combined 3.8-goal swing on goaltending variance. But Edmonton also generated superior shot quality — 0.098 xG per attempt versus Seattle's 0.069 — and converted at an elite rate on high-danger chances: four of ten (40%). C. McDavid (3G, 1A) and L. Draisaitl (1G, 3A) dominated the flow. Jani Nyman's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 19:55) was the moment Edmonton seized control.

Seattle generated just as many high-danger chances (nine to ten) and crashed the net just as effectively on rebounds. But the Kraken were ineffective on the rush: two goals on thirty-two chances, while Edmonton scored six on twenty-nine. P. Grubauer (14/18, −1.07 vs. xG) also failed to compensate, and the shortfall proved decisive.

The Oilers' efficiency — superior shot generation, ruthless high-danger conversion, and dominance on the rush — turned a statistically even contest into a rout.

Three Stars

  • #97 C. McDavid (EDM) — 3G, 1A in 17:20
  • #29 L. Draisaitl (EDM) — 1G, 3A in 17:10
  • #2 E. Bouchard (EDM) — 3A in 20:36
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 4
SEA
4
EDM
9

Oilers pull away from the Kraken

Chances 5.1 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Oilers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
5.08
EDM
5.20
49% of the chances51%

The board read SEA 4, EDM 9. The chances read SEA 5.1, EDM 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+3.8
goals above expected
EDM5.20 expected · 9 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA5.08 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Oilers 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 07:17EDMC. McDavid0–1
  2. P1 07:34EDMV. Podkolzin0–2
  3. P1 11:27EDML. DraisaitlPP0–3
  4. P1 16:07SEAE. TolvanenPP1–3
  5. P1 19:33SEAF. Gaudreau2–3
  6. P2 02:28EDMM. SavoieSH2–4
  7. P2 06:14EDMC. McDavidPP2–5
+6 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
52 shots
4
Final
96 shots
EDM
44 shots
9
SEA attackEDM attack
SEA EDM Goal
52
shots · 4 in
44
shots · 9 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEAEDM
2 / 9
2.66 xG
High danger
4 / 10
2.55 xG
2 / 15
1.56 xG
Medium
3 / 19
2.22 xG
0 / 50
0.85 xG
Low
2 / 24
0.43 xG

The Oilers buried 4 of 10 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
P. Grubauer
+1.2
SEA · 14/18
B+
C. Pickard
+1.1
EDM · 28/32
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers pull away from the Kraken

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 11–10
  1. 07:17EDMC. McDavid(R. Nugent-Hopkins)0–1
  2. 07:34EDMV. Podkolzin(L. Draisaitl, E. Bouchard)0–2
  3. 11:27EDML. Draisaitlpower play(C. McDavid, R. Nugent-Hopkins)0–3
  4. 16:07SEAE. Tolvanenpower play(B. Montour, K. Kakko)1–3
  5. 19:33SEAF. Gaudreau2–3
2ndshots 13–10
  1. 02:28EDMM. Savoieshorthanded(E. Bouchard, A. Henrique)2–4
  2. 06:14EDMC. McDavidpower play(E. Bouchard, L. Draisaitl)2–5
  3. 08:53EDMZ. Hyman(M. Ekholm)2–6
  4. 09:30SEAJ. McCann(J. Eberle, M. Beniers)3–6
3rdshots 8–12
  1. 02:03EDMM. Janmark(A. Mangiapane)3–7
  2. 06:59EDMC. McDavidpower play(R. Nugent-Hopkins, L. Draisaitl)3–8
  3. 08:58EDMM. Savoiepower play(A. Henrique, M. Ekholm)3–9
  4. 19:55SEAJ. Nyman(S. Wright, K. Kakko)4–9

score reads SEA–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.20
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.116
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.7%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.08Expected goals5.20
EDM 51% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal32
9High-danger chances10
74All attempts (Corsi)53
Adjusted for score: SEA 65% · EDM 35%
Faceoffs · EDM won53%off50%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SEA2 / 9 · 2.66 xG
EDM4 / 10 · 2.55 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SEA2 / 15 · 1.56 xG
EDM3 / 19 · 2.22 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SEA0 / 50 · 0.85 xG
EDM2 / 24 · 0.43 xG

EDM went 2-for-24 from low danger on 0.43 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SEA
4 G · 5.08 xG · -1.1
EDM
9 G · 5.20 xG · +3.8
012345678910

SEA finished -1.1 against expected, EDM +3.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SEA
WRIST2/31
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND1/5
SLAP1/5
TIP IN0/5
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/22
EDM
WRIST2/21
SNAP5/9
BACKHAND2/6
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/9
SEA
EDM
Off the rush
2 G on 32
2.68 xG
6 G on 29
3.41 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 5
1.57 xG
2 G on 6
1.26 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 2-for-31, EDM 2-for-21. 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
P. Grubauer
SEA · 14/18 · .778
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/102.5-1.4
Medium3/192.2-0.8
Low2/240.4-1.6

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

J. Daccord
SEA · 9/14 · .643
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/102.5-1.4
Medium3/192.2-0.8
Low2/240.4-1.6

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 · 28/32 · .875
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/92.7+0.7
Medium2/151.6-0.4
Low0/500.8+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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SEA
52 shots
4
Final
96 shots
EDM
44 shots
9
SEA attackEDM attack
SEA EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
3 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 17:20 on ice
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
1 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 17:10 on ice · +1
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 20:36 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:59 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 an Edmonton win at 57% probability, sizing a 2.3-2.7 goal margin. The Oilers' advantage stems from territorial dominance layered with a PDO spread that typically tightens in Edmonton's favor.

Edmonton controls the underlying play decisively. The Oilers generate 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 compared to Seattle's 46.0%—a significant gap in shot quality. Corsi reinforces the tilt: Edmonton drives 50.0% of shot attempts while the Kraken manage 45.0%, telegraphing a game that will lean toward the Oilers' zone.

The deeper edge is PDO regression. Edmonton runs at 0.982—converting at cold rates and allowing more than average. The Oilers sit underwater on goal differential, down 6 over their last 10, despite controlling play. Seattle sits at 1.011, running slightly hot. History says that split tightens; regression favors the Oilers if luck normalizes.

A rest advantage compounds the tilt. The Oilers arrive on one day of rest against Seattle's five-day layoff. Teams deep in rest often lack pace; the Kraken may feel rust early. Expect Seattle to cede territory in the first period to preserve structure.

Goaltending adds uncertainty. S. Skinner works a back-to-back, opening the door to a backup start or a tentative, fatigued performance. The model assumes Skinner plays, so a change would shift weight toward Seattle.

Players to Watch

Seattle's Shane Wright operates at 0.77 expected goals per 60 minutes with 8 goals and 10 assists. His 4 high-danger chances have converted at 10.4%. Berkly Catton generates 0.68 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists; an 8.8% shot rate suggests room for positive variance.

Edmonton's Zach Hyman dominates available space at 1.23 xG/60, backed by 14 goals and 13 assists. His 13.0% shot rate reveals an elite finisher. Connor McDavid remains McDavid: 0.92 xG/60, 25 goals, 33 assists, and a surgical 13.7% shot rate with 5 high-danger goals.

Both teams record 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound goal rates, suppressing ceiling blowouts and floor collapses. Seattle's Chandler Stephenson and Edmonton's Jake Walman represent defensive soft spots where pace exploits gaps.

The edge: Edmonton controls the play, and PDO regression favors them. The Kraken confront an opponent that has played more recently, without five days' rest. If luck normalizes, the model's 57% stands. If not, Seattle's run can extend.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 57%
57%
EDM
Model favorite
43%
57%
SEA50EDM

EDM by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.7 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
SEA← edge
edge →EDM
46.0%52.0%
45.0%50.0%
2.132.64
2.512.47
1.872.13
1.952.29
1.0110.982

EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 0.982) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SEA
4-4-2
-3 GD · 5d rest
EDM
4-5-1
-6 GD · 1d rest
1.011
SEA 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 own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
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 46.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Oilers are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Kraken have 4 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
SEA
Expected in goal
J. Daccord
5 days rest.840 last start
Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
back-to-back.958 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.

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
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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