Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater

Breakdown · DAL at SJS

Stars hold off the Sharks

FinalThu, Dec 18

The verdict · stolen

The Stars stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.50–4.71 and won anyway.

DAL 5 · SJS 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:58 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

Dallas won a heist: the Sharks dominated expected goals 57–43 and controlled 55% of shot attempts with 7–4 high-danger chances, yet lost 5–3. By every metric that predicts outcomes, San Jose should have won.

J. Oettinger was the difference. The Dallas goaltender stopped 34 of 37 shots for a 0.919 save percentage, beating his expected performance by 1.71 goals—that surplus is the gap between a Sharks victory and this result. A. Nedeljkovic (0.862 SV%, 25–29 saves) couldn't compensate.

San Jose's collapse in close quarters decided the game. The Sharks went 0 for 7 on high-danger chances while Dallas buried 2 of 4. Dallas's rush game was equally lethal—4 goals on 22 chances.

Jamie Benn's wrist shot from the high slot in the third period (18:42) was the turning point, when Dallas's precision punished San Jose's wasteful finish.

San Jose underperformed their expected goals by 1.71; Dallas overperformed by 1.50. That variance gap is unsustainable, but it's all that separated these teams tonight.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 18

DAL

SJS

Stars hold off the Sharks

Chances 3.5 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sharks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

3.50

SJS

4.71

43% of the chances57%

The board read DAL 5, SJS 3. The chances read DAL 3.5, SJS 4.7.

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

Luck check

DAL

+1.5

goals above expected

DAL3.50 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

SJS4.71 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Stars scored 1.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 12:25DALR. Hintz1–0
P1 17:38DALW. Johnston2–0
P2 01:43SJSS. Mukhamadullin2–1
P2 08:40DALW. JohnstonPP3–1
P2 16:44SJSC. Graf3–2
P2 19:17DALJ. Hryckowian4–2
P3 04:32SJSC. Graf4–3

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

DAL

40 shots

Final

89 shots

SJS

49 shots

DAL SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALSJS

2 / 4

1.39 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.72 xG

2 / 12

1.42 xG

Medium

1 / 21

2.38 xG

1 / 37

0.69 xG

Low

2 / 42

0.62 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 7 from the slot.

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

In the net

J. Oettinger

+1.7

DAL · 34/37

A. Nedeljkovic

−0.5

SJS · 25/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Stars hold off the Sharks

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 10–12

12:25DALR. Hintz(M. Rantanen, E. Lindell)1–0
17:38DALW. Johnston(M. Heiskanen, E. Lindell)2–0

2ndshots 10–14

01:43SJSS. Mukhamadullin(T. Dellandrea)2–1
08:40DALW. Johnstonpower play(M. Rantanen, R. Hintz)3–1
16:44SJSC. Graf(M. Celebrini)3–2
19:17DALJ. Hryckowian4–2

3rdshots 10–11

04:32SJSC. Graf(I. Chernyshov, M. Celebrini)4–3
18:42DALJ. Bennempty net5–3

score reads DAL–SJS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.50

DAL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.052

DAL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

43.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.50Expected goals4.71

SJS 57% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal37

4High-danger chances7

53All attempts (Corsi)70

Adjusted for score: DAL 39% · SJS 61%

Faceoffs · SJS won39%off48%neu39%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL2 / 4 · 1.39 xG

SJS0 / 7 · 1.72 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL2 / 12 · 1.42 xG

SJS1 / 21 · 2.38 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL1 / 37 · 0.69 xG

SJS2 / 42 · 0.62 xG

SJS went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.72 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

5 G · 3.50 xG · +1.5

SJS

3 G · 4.71 xG · -1.7

0123456

DAL finished +1.5 against expected, SJS -1.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

WRIST5/28

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

SNAP0/0

OTHER0/13

SJS

WRIST2/29

SLAP1/9

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/2

SNAP0/1

OTHER0/21

DAL

SJS

Off the rush

4 G on 22

1.92 xG

1 G on 25

2.39 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.56 xG

1 G on 10

1.65 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 5-for-28, SJS 2-for-29. DAL 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

J. Oettinger

DAL · 34/37 · .919

+1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.7+1.7

Medium1/212.4+1.4

Low2/420.6-1.4

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

A. Nedeljkovic

SJS · 25/29 · .862

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.4-0.6

Medium2/121.4-0.6

Low1/370.7-0.3

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

40 shots

Final

89 shots

SJS

49 shots

DAL SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

E. Lindell

#23 · D · DAL

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 25:46 on ice · +2

M. Celebrini

#71 · C · SJS

0 G · 2 A · 8 SOG · 24:04 on ice

C. Graf

#51 · R · SJS

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 19:29 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:57 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

Dallas and San Jose are too evenly matched to pick. The model projects a 2.5-2.4 Stars advantage with Dallas at 50% win probability—as close to a pick'em as projections get.

Dallas owns the underlying play. The Stars post 51.0% xG to the Sharks' 48.0%, yet both teams share 47.0% Corsi. That modest edge comes with a caveat: Dallas runs 1.024 PDO, meaning they're outscoring their chances. Expect regression.

Goaltending adds uncertainty. Y. Askarov arrives on a back-to-back, which could mean a backup start or a fatigued starter.

Jason Robertson drives Dallas's attack with 0.96 xG/60 and 25G 21A, including 2 high-danger goals on 12.4% shooting. Michael Bunting provides secondary scoring at 0.83 xG/60, 8G 14A, and 7.6% shooting.

San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, who leads at 1.10 xG/60 despite 5G 1A. He's converted high-danger looks at elite efficiency—2 high-danger goals on 16.1% shooting. Igor Chernyshov offers another threat at 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, and 15.0% shooting, with 1 high-danger goal.

Tyler Myers represents Dallas's defensive weakness. Chernyshov's defensive exposure for San Jose partially offsets his offensive value.

This is chaos dressed as matchup analysis. Two evenly staffed teams, one slight underlying edge, one regression looming, and a goalie in uncertain condition. The 50% line holds.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 51%

51%

DAL

Model favorite

51%

49%

DAL50SJS

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.5–2.4 SJS; 19% 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

DAL← edge

edge →SJS

51.0%48.0%

47.0%47.0%

2.362.33

2.292.56

2.071.99

1.682.32

1.0240.998

DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 0.998) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DAL

7-2-1

+9 GD · 2d rest

SJS

6-4-0

-1 GD · 1d rest

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

SJS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DAL

Expected in goal

C. DeSmith

2 days rest.964 last start

Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SJS

Expected in goal

Y. Askarov

back-to-back.900 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.

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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page