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

Oilers hold off the Penguins

The verdict · coin flip

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

EDM 6 · PIT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:36 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

Edmonton won this game with its goaltending and finishing, not domination. The Penguins held 57% of shot attempts and expected goals essentially split down the middle (4.11–4.15), yet the Oilers won 6-4. Edmonton overperformed its expected goals by 1.85 goals—the difference between lucky bounces and tactical execution.

T. Jarry's work in the high-danger zone proved decisive: 100% save percentage on five high-danger shots. S. Skinner, meanwhile, fell 0.85 goals short of expected performance—particularly damaging on Pittsburgh's 0-for-5 night in high-danger areas. Edmonton capitalized on four of six chances in that same zone (67%), the kind of conversion rate that swings close games.

The Penguins' rush game was efficient (2 goals on 28 chances), but Edmonton's was more clinical: four goals on 33 attempts. Pittsburgh created four rebound opportunities and converted two; Edmonton created four and converted none.

Danton Heinen's wrist shot from the slot (19:46, third period) marked the turning point. C. McDavid delivered two goals and two assists in 22:31, L. Draisaitl recorded four assists in 18:02, and E. Karlsson answered for Pittsburgh with one goal and one assist in 24:11.

This was variance working in Edmonton's favor—the Oilers did more with less and emerged with a two-goal win the underlying numbers didn't quite support.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 16
EDM
6
PIT
4

Oilers hold off the Penguins

Chances 4.2 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Oilers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
4.15
PIT
4.11
50% of the chances50%

The board read EDM 6, PIT 4. The chances read EDM 4.2, PIT 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+1.9
goals above expected
EDM4.15 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT4.11 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Oilers scored 1.9 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 11:38EDMZ. HymanPP1–0
  2. P1 11:52EDMC. McDavidPP2–0
  3. P1 19:15PITT. Novak2–1
  4. P2 04:35EDMM. Savoie3–1
  5. P2 06:24PITE. KarlssonPP3–2
  6. P2 09:36EDME. BouchardPP4–2
  7. P3 06:47EDMV. Podkolzin5–2
+3 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
46 shots
6
Final
90 shots
PIT
44 shots
4
EDM attackPIT attack
EDM PIT Goal
46
shots · 6 in
44
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMPIT
4 / 6
1.97 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.29 xG
1 / 16
1.45 xG
Medium
3 / 20
2.38 xG
1 / 32
0.73 xG
Low
1 / 39
0.44 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
T. Jarry
+0.1
EDM · 26/30
D-
S. Skinner
−0.8
PIT · 17/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers hold off the Penguins

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 10–9
  1. 11:38EDMZ. Hymanpower play(C. McDavid, L. Draisaitl)1–0
  2. 11:52EDMC. McDavidpower play(L. Draisaitl, E. Bouchard)2–0
  3. 19:15PITT. Novak(A. Mantha)2–1
2ndshots 7–9
  1. 04:35EDMM. Savoie(A. Regula, M. Janmark)3–1
  2. 06:24PITE. Karlssonpower play(S. Crosby, R. Rakell)3–2
  3. 09:36EDME. Bouchardpower play(C. McDavid, L. Draisaitl)4–2
3rdshots 6–12
  1. 06:47EDMV. Podkolzin(L. Draisaitl, M. Ekholm)5–2
  2. 16:51PITB. Rustpower play(A. Mantha, E. Karlsson)5–3
  3. 18:41EDMC. McDavidempty net(Z. Hyman)6–3
  4. 19:46PITD. Heinen(T. Novak, R. Shea)6–4

score reads EDM–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.15
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.049
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.15Expected goals4.11
EDM 50% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal30
6High-danger chances5
54All attempts (Corsi)64
Adjusted for score: EDM 40% · PIT 60%
Faceoffs · PIT won53%off26%neu40%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM4 / 6 · 1.97 xG
PIT0 / 5 · 1.29 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM1 / 16 · 1.45 xG
PIT3 / 20 · 2.38 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM1 / 32 · 0.73 xG
PIT1 / 39 · 0.44 xG

EDM went 4-for-6 from high danger on 1.97 expected goals — 2.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
6 G · 4.15 xG · +1.9
PIT
4 G · 4.11 xG · -0.1
01234567

EDM finished +1.9 against expected, PIT -0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST4/31
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND2/3
BAT0/1
POKE0/1
SNAP0/0
OTHER0/8
PIT
WRIST2/28
SLAP1/7
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND1/4
BAT0/0
POKE0/0
SNAP0/1
OTHER0/20
EDM
PIT
Off the rush
4 G on 33
2.70 xG
2 G on 28
2.86 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.35 xG
2 G on 4
0.63 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 4-for-31, PIT 2-for-28. EDM scored 4 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
T. Jarry
EDM · 26/30 · .867
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.3+1.3
Medium3/202.4-0.6
Low1/390.4-0.6

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

S. Skinner
PIT · 17/22 · .773
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/62.0-2.0
Medium1/161.4+0.5
Low1/320.7-0.3

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
46 shots
6
Final
90 shots
PIT
44 shots
4
EDM attackPIT attack
EDM PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
2 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 22:31 on ice
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
0 G · 4 A · 3 SOG · 18:02 on ice
E. Karlsson
#65 · D · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:11 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:34 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 pegs this as nearly dead even: Penguins 52% to win, expected margin 2.6–2.7 goals either way. Even possession confirms it. Both teams carry identical 50.0% Corsi% and nearly matched expected-goals share—EDM 52.0%, PIT 51.0%—meaning both generate chances at nearly the same rate.

What separates them is luck. Edmonton's PDO sits at 0.982, running cold in both shooting and save percentage. Pittsburgh's 1.012 reflects the opposite: everything's converting. Regression math favors Edmonton, but not necessarily tonight.

The Oilers' offensive load rests on two names. Zach Hyman leads at 1.23 xG/60—the highest rate on either roster—and has shot 13.0% (14 goals, 13 assists). Connor McDavid trails at 0.92 xG/60 but at 13.7% shooting (25 goals, 33 assists), meaning his chances carry more finish. Stopping both is Pittsburgh's ceiling; neutralizing one is its floor.

Pittsburgh counters with Rickard Rakell (13 goals, 12.1% shooting, 1.01 xG/60), who's paired efficiency with volume. Filip Hallander generated Pittsburgh's highest rate at 1.28 xG/60, but he's likely unavailable—the IR designation signals ongoing evaluation after a conditioning assignment. Without him, Pittsburgh's scoring depth contracts.

C. Pickard starts on a back-to-back, a minor detail suggesting Pittsburgh may be managing workload or testing him against an offensive test case. The outcome hinges on whether Edmonton translates its 52% xG share into actual goals; Pittsburgh's hot save rate (1.012 PDO) has kept it mostly immune so far.

Both teams have generated zero high-danger goals at rates suggesting process issues rather than bad luck—a neutral tell that favors neither. Jake Walman is Edmonton's weakest defensive link; Caleb Jones is Pittsburgh's. Neither is catastrophic alone, but in a close game, that asymmetry matters.

The model calls this a pick'em because it is one. Possession is level, shooting luck diverges, and Hallander's absence slightly narrows Pittsburgh's path. The Penguins' 52% edge reflects marginal advantage—the kind you'd get from home ice or recent form. Neither team is pulling away.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 52%
52%
PIT
Model favorite
48%
52%
EDM50PIT

PIT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.7 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
EDM← edge
edge →PIT
52.0%51.0%
50.0%50.0%
2.642.66
2.472.55
2.132.45
2.292.12
0.9821.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 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
EDM
6-3-1
+12 GD · 1d rest
PIT
4-2-4
-3 GD · 2d rest
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • C. Pickard is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
EDM
Expected in goal
C. Pickard
back-to-back.852 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.

PIT
Expected in goal
S. Murashov
2 days rest.861 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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
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
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