Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
Breakdown · SJS at CAR

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Hurricanes

The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.11–3.56 and won anyway.

SJS 4 · CAR 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:23 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 Sharks beat the Hurricanes 4-1 in a game the underlying numbers said was nearly even—expected goals favored Carolina 3.56–3.11, yet San Jose won by three. A. Nedeljkovic's 0.966 save percentage explained the gap.

The Hurricanes controlled play with 56% of shot attempts (29–23 on goal) and generated 6 high-danger chances to the Sharks' 5. Analytically, Carolina was competitive. In the result, it wasn't.

Nedeljkovic was immaculate on chances that mattered. He stopped 2.56 goals above expected and denied all 6 high-danger shots, a perfect record when San Jose's net was decided in that zone. P. Kochetkov couldn't match him—he finished 19/22 (0.864 SV%) on a night the Hurricanes needed everything.

San Jose won with efficiency. The Sharks averaged 0.078 expected goals per shot compared to Carolina's 0.042—a reflection of their higher-quality looks. On the rush, they were lethal: 2 goals on 22 chances. In the high-danger area, they converted 60% (3 of 5) while Carolina got nothing (0 of 6).

That cold streak for the Hurricanes—zero goals on six prime looks—is variance that won't repeat often. But on this night, they crashed the net and created 4 rebound opportunities without finish. The Sharks did.

M. Celebrini punctuated the dominance in his limited role, registering 1 goal and 2 assists in 18:12. His wrist shot from the doorstep in the third period marked the game's turning point. J. Klingberg (1G, 1A in 18:43) and A. Wennberg (1G, 1A in 18:36) formed the third-line finishers.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 7
SJS
4
CAR
1

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Hurricanes

Chances 3.1 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
3.11
CAR
3.56
47% of the chances53%

The board read SJS 4, CAR 1. The chances read SJS 3.1, CAR 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+0.9
goals above expected
SJS3.11 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR3.56 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes left 2.6 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 00:33SJSC. Graf1–0
  2. P1 13:18CARJ. StaalPP1–1
  3. P2 07:54SJSJ. Klingberg2–1
  4. P2 15:14SJSA. WennbergPP3–1
  5. P3 18:40SJSM. CelebriniEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
31 shots
4
Final
88 shots
CAR
57 shots
1
SJS attackCAR attack
SJS CAR Goal
31
shots · 4 in
57
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSCAR
3 / 5
1.86 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.32 xG
1 / 9
0.90 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.25 xG
0 / 26
0.35 xG
Low
0 / 64
0.99 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Nedeljkovic
+2.6
SJS · 28/29
C
P. Kochetkov
+0.1
CAR · 19/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Hurricanes

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 6–8
  1. 00:33SJSC. Graf(M. Celebrini, W. Smith)1–0
  2. 13:18CARJ. Staalpower play(S. Gostisbehere, A. Svechnikov)1–1
2ndshots 10–6
  1. 07:54SJSJ. Klingberg(M. Celebrini, P. Kurashev)2–1
  2. 15:14SJSA. Wennbergpower play(W. Eklund, J. Klingberg)3–1
3rdshots 7–15
  1. 18:40SJSM. Celebriniempty net(A. Wennberg)4–1

score reads SJS–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.11
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.088
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
32.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.11Expected goals3.56
CAR 53% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal29
5High-danger chances6
40All attempts (Corsi)84
Adjusted for score: SJS 28% · CAR 72%
Faceoffs · CAR won79%off46%neu23%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS3 / 5 · 1.86 xG
CAR0 / 6 · 1.32 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS1 / 9 · 0.90 xG
CAR1 / 14 · 1.25 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS0 / 26 · 0.35 xG
CAR0 / 64 · 0.99 xG

CAR went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.32 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
4 G · 3.11 xG · +0.9
CAR
1 G · 3.56 xG · -2.6
012345

SJS finished +0.9 against expected, CAR -2.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
SNAP2/5
WRIST1/16
SLAP0/4
TIP IN1/3
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
CAR
SNAP0/30
WRIST0/5
SLAP0/8
TIP IN1/8
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/27
SJS
CAR
Off the rush
2 G on 22
2.62 xG
1 G on 39
2.86 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.22 xG
0 G on 4
0.18 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SJS went 2-for-5, CAR 0-for-30. SJS 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
A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 28/29 · .966
+2.6
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.3+1.3
Medium1/141.3+0.3
Low0/641.0+1.0

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

P. Kochetkov
CAR · 19/22 · .864
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/51.9-1.1
Medium1/90.9-0.1
Low0/260.3+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SJS
31 shots
4
Final
88 shots
CAR
57 shots
1
SJS attackCAR attack
SJS CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, CAR 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
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:12 on ice · +3
J. Klingberg
#3 · D · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:43 on ice · +1
A. Wennberg
#21 · C · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:36 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Dec 7
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:19 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 2.3-2.9 Sharks-Hurricanes score with Carolina at 60% win probability — backed by clear underlying advantages that the Sharks' recent form doesn't match.

The Hurricanes command 56.0% expected goals share at 5v5 (San Jose: 48.0%) and drive 60.0% Corsi, signaling both strategic superiority and puck possession dominance that compounds over 60 minutes. Carolina should control territory decisively.

The Sharks are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10 games, a collapse that makes today's matchup an uphill climb.

Carolina's PDO sits at 0.984 versus San Jose's 0.998 — a gap suggesting positive regression is due for the Hurricanes, especially with their dominant underlying metrics. Watch for Y. Askarov's status; a back-to-back may force a backup into the net or leave the starter running on fumes.

Among players to watch, Pavol Regenda leads San Jose with 5 goals and a 1.10 xG/60 rate, though he's marked as likely inactive for this matchup. Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6 goals, 15.0% shooting) remains a scoring threat. For Carolina, Jackson Blake (1.06 xG/60, 14 goals, 10.9% shooting) and Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17 goals, 11.9% shooting) anchor the attack.

The Sharks' defensive vulnerability sits with Igor Chernyshov, while Carolina has exposed issues tracking Charles Alexis Legault. Neither team generates high-danger goals or rebound chances efficiently — both at 0% — so expect a tighter, lower-variance game than raw xG% alone suggests.

The xG advantage plus territorial control give Carolina the model's lean. Regression should reinforce that edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 60%
60%
CAR
Model favorite
40%
60%
SJS50CAR

CAR by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score SJS 2.3–2.9 CAR; 17% 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
SJS← edge
edge →CAR
48.0%56.0%
47.0%60.0%
2.332.98
2.562.31
1.992.26
2.321.95
0.9980.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.984) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SJS
5-5-0
-9 GD · 1d rest
CAR
5-3-2
-2 GD · 2d rest
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Sharks are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
SJS
Expected in goal
Y. Askarov
back-to-back.870 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.

CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
2 days rest.826 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 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
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
CAR
Jackson Blake14G 19A
1.06 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.9% sh
Seth Jarvis17G 12A
0.98 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next