Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
← Sat, Dec 20 · the slate
Breakdown · SEA at SJS

J. Daccord stands tall as the Kraken edge the Sharks

FinalSat, Dec 20
SEASeattle Kraken4SJSSan Jose Sharks2
The verdict · stolen

The Kraken stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.34–6.42 and won anyway.

SEA 4 · SJS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:20 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 Kraken stole this one. Seattle won 4–2 despite San Jose commanding 66% of expected goals (6.42–3.34)—a gap that renders the scoreboard almost irrelevant. The Sharks controlled shot attempts at 54% (37–32) and dominated high-danger chances 14–5. Yet they lost.

J. Daccord engineered the heist. The Kraken goaltender made 35 of 36 saves for a 0.972 save percentage, stopping 5.42 goals above expected. Y. Askarov, by comparison, posted 0.903 on 28 of 31 saves—respectable, but insufficient when Daccord lapped him in volume.

Seattle's efficiency was severe. The Kraken scored twice from low-danger spots and were lethal on the rush with 3 goals on 26 chances. San Jose squandered its offensive quality: 11 rebound opportunities, zero conversions. The Sharks underperformed expected goals by 4.4, meaning they had the chances but couldn't finish.

Chandler Stephenson's backhander from the doorstep in the third period exemplified Seattle's ruthlessness. Stephenson collected 1 goal and 1 assist in 22:06; E. Tolvanen added 1 goal and 1 assist in 19:22. M. Celebrini contributed 1 assist for San Jose in 22:32.

This was never close in the shots that mattered—Daccord simply refused to surrender to San Jose's dominance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 20
SEA
4
SJS
2

J. Daccord stands tall as the Kraken edge the Sharks

Chances 3.3 – 6.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
3.34
SJS
6.42
34% of the chances66%

The board read SEA 4, SJS 2. The chances read SEA 3.3, SJS 6.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
+0.7
goals above expected
SEA3.34 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS6.42 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks left 4.4 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. P2 06:52SEAE. Tolvanen1–0
  2. P2 11:22SJSA. GaudettePP1–1
  3. P3 00:36SJSC. Graf1–2
  4. P3 01:55SEAR. Evans2–2
  5. P3 04:27SEAR. Lindgren3–2
  6. P3 18:36SEAC. StephensonEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
36 shots
4
Final
97 shots
SJS
61 shots
2
SEA attackSJS attack
SEA SJS Goal
36
shots · 4 in
61
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEASJS
1 / 5
1.91 xG
High danger
2 / 14
3.62 xG
1 / 11
1.04 xG
Medium
0 / 19
2.05 xG
2 / 29
0.40 xG
Low
0 / 53
0.74 xG

High-danger looks: SEA 1 of 5, SJS 2 of 14.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Daccord
+5.4
SEA · 35/36
B
Y. Askarov
+0.3
SJS · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Daccord stands tall as the Kraken edge 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 17–12no goals
    2ndshots 7–12
    1. 06:52SEAE. Tolvanen1–0
    2. 11:22SJSA. Gaudettepower play(I. Chernyshov, M. Celebrini)1–1
    3rdshots 8–13
    1. 00:36SJSC. Graf1–2
    2. 01:55SEAR. Evans2–2
    3. 04:27SEAR. Lindgren(C. Stephenson, F. Gaudreau)3–2
    4. 18:36SEAC. Stephensonempty net(E. Tolvanen, J. Daccord)4–2

    score reads SEA–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.34
    SEA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.7
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.066
    SEA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    34.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.34Expected goals6.42
    SJS 66% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal37
    5High-danger chances14
    45All attempts (Corsi)86
    Adjusted for score: SEA 33% · SJS 67%
    Faceoffs · SJS won67%off29%neu36%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SEA1 / 5 · 1.91 xG
    SJS2 / 14 · 3.62 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SEA1 / 11 · 1.04 xG
    SJS0 / 19 · 2.05 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SEA2 / 29 · 0.40 xG
    SJS0 / 53 · 0.74 xG

    SJS went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.05 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SEA
    4 G · 3.34 xG · +0.7
    SJS
    2 G · 6.42 xG · -4.4
    01234567

    SEA finished +0.7 against expected, SJS -4.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    SEA
    WRIST3/22
    BACKHAND1/5
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/5
    SNAP0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/9
    SJS
    WRIST0/31
    BACKHAND1/7
    SLAP0/9
    TIP IN0/5
    SNAP0/5
    DEFLECTED0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER1/26
    SEA
    SJS
    Off the rush
    3 G on 26
    2.91 xG
    2 G on 33
    3.95 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.30 xG
    0 G on 11
    1.53 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 3-for-22, SJS 0-for-31. SEA 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
    J. Daccord
    SEA · 35/36 · .972
    +5.4
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/143.6+1.6
    Medium0/192.0+2.0
    Low0/530.7+0.7

    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

    Y. Askarov
    SJS · 28/31 · .903
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.9+0.9
    Medium1/111.0+0.0
    Low2/290.4-1.6

    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

    97 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SEA
    36 shots
    4
    Final
    97 shots
    SJS
    61 shots
    2
    SEA attackSJS attack
    SEA SJS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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
    C. Stephenson
    #9 · C · SEA
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:06 on ice · +3
    E. Tolvanen
    #20 · R · SEA
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:22 on ice · +2
    M. Celebrini
    #71 · C · SJS
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:32 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 20
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:19 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 2.4-2.5 goal spread with San Jose favored at 53%, which is about as close as competitive hockey gets. This is not a team advantage masquerading as a toss-up — it's a toss-up.

    Both teams control the puck at similar rates. Seattle's 46.0% expected goals share and 45.0% Corsi share say they're outshot in the underlying play; San Jose's 48.0% xG and 47.0% Corsi confirm the reverse, but the margins are narrow enough that luck dominates. Seattle's 1.011 PDO suggests they've been better than the numbers; San Jose's 0.998 suggests they've been worse. In a game this close, that noise matters more than the signal.

    Seattle's top threats are Shane Wright and Berkly Catton. Wright has 8 goals and 10 assists on 0.77 expected goals per 60 minutes—he's converting at elite rates (10.4% shooting) on a 4 high-danger-goal stretch. Catton adds 6 goals and 8 assists on 0.68 xG/60, but his 5 high-danger goals and 8.8% shooting rate show he's found the areas that count. Together they represent Seattle's offensive ceiling.

    San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, whose 1.10 xG/60 and 16.1% shooting rate produced 5 goals in limited space, including 2 high-danger conversions—unusually hot. Igor Chernyshov pairs 0.91 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists at 15.0% shooting, though he's converted just 1 high-danger goal. Both are scoring at rates that suggest early-season variance, especially Regenda, who may regress.

    The tactical imbalance is marginal. Seattle's Chandler Stephenson and San Jose's Igor Chernyshov stand out as defensive weaknesses, but when the offense is this tightly matched and depth scoring this uncertain, goaltending will settle it. It always does when the numbers refuse to pick a winner.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    SJS 53%
    53%
    SJS
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    SEA50SJS

    SJS by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.4–2.5 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
    SEA← edge
    edge →SJS
    46.0%48.0%
    45.0%47.0%
    2.132.33
    2.512.56
    1.871.99
    1.952.32
    1.0110.998

    SJS holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 0.998) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    SEA
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    SJS
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.011
    SEA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    SJS PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Things to watch
    • Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    SEA
    Shane Wright8G 10A
    0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
    Berkly Catton6G 8A
    0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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