Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Sat, Dec 27 · the slate
Breakdown · SJS at VAN

Sharks run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Dec 27
SJSSan Jose Sharks6VANVancouver Canucks3
The verdict · earned

The Sharks earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

SJS 6 · VAN 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:06 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 Sharks' 6-3 victory understated their dominance. San Jose controlled 66% of expected goals at 5v5 (5.90–2.97), despite the Canucks holding a 42% shot-attempt edge (27–38). The gap between volume and quality separated the teams decisively.

Vancouver generated high-danger chances at a 3–7 disadvantage. Those weren't close: San Jose averaged 0.083 expected goals per shot versus Vancouver's 0.055. The Sharks had the looks that score; the Canucks didn't.

Collin Graf's wrist shot from the slot in the third period (16:55) marked the turning point. At that point, San Jose had already built the advantage into looks they controlled.

Goaltending told a split story. Y. Askarov stopped 24 of 27 for 0.889. T. Demko stopped 32 of 36 for the same rate but saved 1.90 goals above expected—and still lost 6-3. The Canucks' shot quality simply wasn't enough to overcome their depth disadvantage.

The rush game broke even (both 3 goals), but rebound chances went 7–4 to San Jose with 2 conversions versus Vancouver's 0. The Sharks generated more of what ends games.

Three Stars

  • #17 F. Hronek (VAN) — 2A in 21:56
  • #71 M. Celebrini (SJS) — 1G, 1A in 21:47
  • #72 W. Eklund (SJS) — 1G, 1A in 21:09
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 27
SJS
6
VAN
3

Sharks run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.9 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
5.90
VAN
2.97
67% of the chances34%

The board read SJS 6, VAN 3. The chances read SJS 5.9, VAN 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+0.1
goals above expected
SJS5.90 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.97 expected · 3 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
  1. P1 06:11SJSR. Reaves1–0
  2. P1 07:55SJSJ. Klingberg2–0
  3. P1 10:04VANL. KarlssonPP2–1
  4. P2 12:38SJSW. Eklund3–1
  5. P3 00:36VANM. Rossi3–2
  6. P3 04:47SJSI. ChernyshovPP4–2
  7. P3 10:43VAND. O'ConnorSH4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
62 shots
6
Final
103 shots
VAN
41 shots
3
SJS attackVAN attack
SJS VAN Goal
62
shots · 6 in
41
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSVAN
2 / 7
2.36 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.71 xG
2 / 25
2.69 xG
Medium
3 / 16
1.63 xG
2 / 39
0.85 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.64 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
T. Demko
+1.9
VAN · 32/36
C
Y. Askarov
−0.0
SJS · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 11–8
  1. 06:11SJSR. Reaves(B. Goodrow, V. Iorio)1–0
  2. 07:55SJSJ. Klingberg(M. Celebrini)2–0
  3. 10:04VANL. Karlssonpower play(C. Garland, F. Hronek)2–1
2ndshots 12–6
  1. 12:38SJSW. Eklund3–1
3rdshots 15–13
  1. 00:36VANM. Rossi(F. Hronek, C. Garland)3–2
  2. 04:47SJSI. Chernyshovpower play(A. Gaudette, D. Orlov)4–2
  3. 10:43VAND. O'Connorshorthanded4–3
  4. 16:20SJSM. Celebrini(I. Chernyshov, W. Eklund)5–3
  5. 16:55SJSC. Grafempty net(A. Wennberg, M. Ferraro)6–3

score reads SJS–VAN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.90
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.029
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
56.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.90Expected goals2.97
SJS 67% of the chance quality
38Shots on goal27
7High-danger chances3
71All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: SJS 52% · VAN 48%
Faceoffs · VAN won48%off65%neu55%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS2 / 7 · 2.36 xG
VAN0 / 3 · 0.71 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS2 / 25 · 2.69 xG
VAN3 / 16 · 1.63 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS2 / 39 · 0.85 xG
VAN0 / 35 · 0.64 xG

VAN went 3-for-16 from medium danger on 1.63 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
6 G · 5.90 xG · +0.1
VAN
3 G · 2.97 xG · +0.0
01234567

SJS finished +0.1 against expected, VAN +0.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
WRIST4/33
SNAP1/8
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND0/5
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER1/10
VAN
WRIST2/14
SNAP1/17
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/13
SJS
VAN
Off the rush
3 G on 38
3.80 xG
3 G on 23
1.93 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 7
1.10 xG
0 G on 4
0.68 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 4-for-33, VAN 2-for-14. SJS 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 · 24/27 · .889
-0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium3/161.6-1.4
Low0/350.6+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

T. Demko
VAN · 32/36 · .889
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.4+0.4
Medium2/252.7+0.7
Low2/390.8-1.1

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

103 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SJS
62 shots
6
Final
103 shots
VAN
41 shots
3
SJS attackVAN attack
SJS VAN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, VAN 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
F. Hronek
#17 · D · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:56 on ice
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 8 SOG · 21:47 on ice · +1
W. Eklund
#72 · L · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:09 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:58 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

San Jose's at 51%—a coin flip. The Sharks own the underlying play, but Vancouver's regression risk narrows the edge.

The model projects a 2.6–2.5 San Jose win. The Sharks' advantage is process: they're generating 48.0% of 5v5 expected goals versus Vancouver's 44.0%, and controlling play at 47.0% Corsi to 46.0%. That's structural, not dominant.

Vancouver's problem is variance. At 0.974 PDO, the Canucks are underperforming their shooting and save percentages—they're running cold. Regression arrives unpredictably. San Jose's recent form compounds the risk: -13 goal differential over the last 10 games means they've been outscored despite generating decent chances. That process-to-results gap is where wins slip away.

The Sharks' edge rests on two high-variance scorers. Pavol Regenda generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes at 5v5 with 5 goals on 16.1% shooting and 2 high-danger chances. Igor Chernyshov backs him at 0.91 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists on 15.0% shooting, also inflated. Both are outperforming their underlying play, so negative regression could hit either.

Vancouver's threats are steadier. Filip Chytil is at 1.03 xG/60 with just 3 goals on 15.0% shooting—underperforming, likely to correct. Drew O'Connor carries 13 goals and 11 assists on 0.85 xG/60 at 11.8% shooting—efficient without volume. If Chytil regresses toward his expected output, Vancouver's scoring leaps.

The case for San Jose is clean: better control, more chances. The case for Vancouver is simpler: unlucky, should break even. At 51%, the model splits the difference.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

SJS 51%
51%
SJS
Model favorite
51%
49%
SJS50VAN

SJS by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SJS 2.6–2.5 VAN; 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 →VAN
48.0%44.0%
47.0%46.0%
2.332.22
2.562.81
1.991.60
2.322.56
0.9980.974

SJS holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.974) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SJS
4-6-0
-13 GD · 3d rest
VAN
5-5-0
-3 GD · 4d rest
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.974
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Sharks own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Sharks own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • The Sharks are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
3 days rest.700 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

VAN
Expected in goal
T. Demko
4 days rest.895 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
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
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page