Backcheck
Recap · SJS at PIT

Sharks edge the Penguins in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 8:10 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
SJS
San Jose Sharks
6
Home
PIT
Pittsburgh Penguins
5
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

5.37Expected goals5.16
51% share for the better side
31Shot attempts (SOG)43
9High-danger chances9
74Corsi (all attempts)76
Score-adjusted: 54% / 46%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Pittsburgh controlled the shot volume. It didn't matter.

The Sharks won 6–5 in overtime despite the Penguins holding 58% of shot attempts (43–31 on goal). Expected goals split 5.16 to 5.37—near-even—explaining the paradox: Pittsburgh generated quantity, not quality. High-danger chances finished 9–9.

Y. Askarov stopped 38 of 43 shots (0.884 SV%), while A. Silovs allowed 6 on 31 (0.806 SV%), 0.63 below expected. That gap—goaltending underperformance against the volume—cost Pittsburgh.

The Penguins had dangerous moments: 3 goals on 30 rush chances, 1 goal on 6 rebounds, 3 power-play goals on 14 shots (1.31 xG). San Jose matched the power-play ruthlessness (3 goals on 17 shots, 1.23 xG) while converting 2 rush chances on 30 and 2 rebounds on 8.

John Klingberg's wrist shot from the slot at 2:57 of overtime ended it.

  • #73 T. Toffoli (SJS) — 2G, 2A in 16:17
  • #71 M. Celebrini (SJS) — 1G, 2A in 27:14
  • #21 A. Wennberg (SJS) — 3A in 23:34
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS2 / 9 · 2.42 xG
PIT1 / 9 · 2.23 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS3 / 19 · 2.31 xG
PIT3 / 17 · 2.02 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS1 / 46 · 0.64 xG
PIT1 / 50 · 0.90 xG

PIT went 1-for-9 from high danger on 2.23 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
6 G · 5.37 xG · +0.6
PIT
5 G · 5.16 xG · -0.2
01234567
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
Y. AskarovSJS
+0.2
A. SilovsPIT
-0.6

SJS finished +0.6 against expected, PIT -0.2 — A. Silovs (PIT) allowed 0.6 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
WRIST5/33
SLAP1/5
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/5
OTHER0/23
PIT
WRIST4/34
SLAP1/13
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/0
OTHER0/18
SJS
PIT
Off the rush
2 G on 30 · 3.26 xG
3 G on 30 · 2.73 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 8 · 1.50 xG
1 G on 6 · 1.01 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 5-for-33, PIT 4-for-34. PIT scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
T. Toffoli
#73 · C · SJS
2 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 16:17 TOI · +2
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
1 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 27:14 TOI · +3
A. Wennberg
#21 · C · SJS
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 23:34 TOI · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • PIT had the shot volume but the chances weren't dangerous.
  • Open game — 18 high-danger chances combined (PIT 9, SJS 9).
  • PIT was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 30 rush chances.
  • SJS was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 30 rush chances.
  • PIT created 6 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • SJS created 8 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • PIT power play was dominant — 3 PPG on 14 PP shots (1.31 xG).
  • SJS power play was dominant — 3 PPG on 17 PP shots (1.23 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · SJS at PIT · 3:00 PM ET

The Penguins are the model's lean over the Sharks on the underlying numbers

By the ModelJul 11, 8:09 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
PIT
Model favorite
45%
55%
SJS50PIT

PIT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.42.7 PIT; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

SJS← edge
edge →PIT
48.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
47.0%Corsi%50.0%
2.33xGF / 602.66
2.56xGA / 602.55
1.99Goals for / gm2.45
2.32Goals against / gm2.12
0.998PDO — luck, not skill1.012

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 1.012) says PIT has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Pittsburgh dominates the underlying play. The model projects a 2.4–2.7 goal game with the Penguins at 55% win probability—a substantial edge in a matchup driven by shot quality and territorial control.

The gap is clearest at 5v5, where Pittsburgh generates 51.0% expected goals to San Jose's 48.0%. The Penguins control Corsi at 50.0% to 47.0%, a significant margin that forecasts a game tilted toward Pittsburgh's ice.

Form compounds the edge. The Penguins are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10 games; the Sharks are at -9. Both teams are struggling, but San Jose's decline is steeper.

Goaltending could inject variance. T. Jarry works on a back-to-back for Pittsburgh, as does A. Nedeljkovic for San Jose. A backup start or a tired starter in either crease could tighten what the model sees as a comfortable margin.

Rickard Rakell drives Pittsburgh's offense at 1.01 xG/60 with 13 goals and 13 assists, including 3 high-danger goals on 12.1% shooting. San Jose's primary threat, Pavol Regenda, carries 1.10 xG/60 with 5 goals and 1 assist—elite underlying metrics—but is marked inactive. Igor Chernyshov offers secondary scoring at 0.91 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists on 15.0% shooting.

Filip Hallander, recalled to Pittsburgh's active roster at 1.28 xG/60, is likely unavailable pending further evaluation.

Pittsburgh's territorial edge and San Jose's injury toll should let the Penguins control the game's shape. The model sees a clear win; execution is the only obstacle.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters