Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater

Breakdown · SJS at PIT

Sharks edge the Penguins in overtime

Final / OTSat, Dec 13

SJSSan Jose Sharks6 PITPittsburgh Penguins5

The verdict · coin flip

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

SJS 6 · PIT 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:10 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

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

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Dec 13

SJS

PIT

Sharks edge the Penguins in overtime

Chances 5.4 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sharks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

SJS

5.37

PIT

5.16

51% of the chances49%

The board read SJS 6, PIT 5. The chances read SJS 5.4, PIT 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

SJS

+0.6

goals above expected

SJS5.37 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT5.16 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 10:27SJST. Toffoli1–0
P1 12:41PITS. CrosbyPP1–1
P2 00:19PITR. McGroarty1–2
P2 09:42PITK. Hayes1–3
P2 19:53PITB. RustPP1–4
P3 05:25PITA. ManthaPP1–5
P3 07:33SJSJ. KlingbergPP2–5

+4 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

SJS

51 shots

Final

109 shots

PIT

58 shots

SJS PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SJSPIT

2 / 9

2.42 xG

High danger

1 / 9

2.23 xG

3 / 19

2.31 xG

Medium

3 / 17

2.02 xG

1 / 46

0.64 xG

Low

1 / 50

0.90 xG

The Sharks buried 2 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

Y. Askarov

+0.2

SJS · 38/43

A. Silovs

−0.6

PIT · 25/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sharks edge the Penguins in overtime

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 7–12

10:27SJST. Toffoli(S. Dickinson, A. Wennberg)1–0
12:41PITS. Crosbypower play(A. Mantha, B. Rust)1–1

2ndshots 6–20

00:19PITR. McGroarty(B. Kindel, K. Letang)1–2
09:42PITK. Hayes(N. Acciari, C. Dewar)1–3
19:53PITB. Rustpower play(S. Crosby, A. Mantha)1–4

3rdshots 17–10

05:25PITA. Manthapower play(B. Rust, E. Karlsson)1–5
07:33SJSJ. Klingbergpower play(T. Toffoli, W. Eklund)2–5
14:19SJSW. Eklund(A. Wennberg, A. Gaudette)3–5
17:33SJSM. Celebrinipower play(T. Toffoli, C. Graf)4–5
18:22SJST. Toffolipower play(A. Wennberg, M. Celebrini)5–5

OTshots 1–1

02:57SJSJ. Klingberg(M. Celebrini, C. Graf)6–5

score reads SJS–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.37

SJS chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.015

SJS puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

49.3%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.37Expected goals5.16

SJS 51% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal43

9High-danger chances9

74All attempts (Corsi)76

Adjusted for score: SJS 54% · PIT 46%

Faceoffs · PIT won54%off40%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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

SJS finished +0.6 against expected, PIT -0.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

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

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

Y. Askarov

SJS · 38/43 · .884

+0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.2+1.2

Medium3/172.0-1.0

Low1/500.9-0.1

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. Silovs

PIT · 25/31 · .806

-0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/92.4+0.4

Medium3/192.3-0.7

Low1/460.6-0.4

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

109 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SJS

51 shots

Final

109 shots

PIT

58 shots

SJS PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, PIT 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

T. Toffoli

#73 · C · SJS

2 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 16:17 on ice · +2

M. Celebrini

#71 · C · SJS

1 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 27:14 on ice · +3

A. Wennberg

#21 · C · SJS

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 23:34 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 13

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:09 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

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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 55%

55%

PIT

Model favorite

45%

55%

SJS50PIT

PIT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.4–2.7 PIT; 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

SJS← edge

edge →PIT

48.0%51.0%

47.0%50.0%

2.332.66

2.562.55

1.992.45

2.322.12

0.9981.012

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.012) says PIT 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

PIT

4-3-3

-7 GD · 1d rest

0.998

SJS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
T. Jarry is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Penguins are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
The Sharks are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

SJS

Expected in goal

A. Nedeljkovic

back-to-back.933 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.

PIT

Expected in goal

T. Jarry

back-to-back.862 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page