Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
Breakdown · VAN at SEA

Canucks steal one from the Kraken against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.32–4.42 and won anyway.

VAN 3 · SEA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:24 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 Canucks stole one in a shootout. The Kraken owned 66% of expected goals — 4.42 to 2.32 — and still fell short. This was a heist.

Seattle controlled the game by every conventional metric: 39–24 in shot attempts, 7–2 in high-danger chances. But volume didn't translate. K. Lankinen, the Vancouver goaltender, stopped 37 of 39 shots at a 0.949 save percentage, recording +2.42 against expected. That margin — two full goals above the expected line — swallowed the Kraken's advantage.

The gap wasn't random. Seattle generated far more dangerous chances, averaging 0.070 xG per shot versus 0.036 for Vancouver. The Kraken underperformed their xG by 2.42 goals, a symptom of wasted quality. They scored 2 goals on 30 rush attempts, the kind of rush conversion rate that usually owns games, then converted zero on 4 rebound opportunities. Vancouver created 5 rebounds and converted the same: nothing. Possession became irrelevant.

J. Daccord (SEA) faced a lighter workload, stopping 22 of 24, but worked against a defense that generated leaner scoring chances.

Liam Ohgren's wrist shot from the slot in the shootout decided the match. E. Pettersson (VAN) had scored in regulation. V. Dunn and J. Eberle (SEA) both assisted. But Vancouver got the final word when it mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 29
VAN
3
SEA
2

Canucks steal one from the Kraken against the run of play

Chances 2.3 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kraken deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.32
SEA
4.42
34% of the chances66%

The board read VAN 3, SEA 2. The chances read VAN 2.3, SEA 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+0.7
goals above expected
VAN2.32 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA4.42 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kraken left 2.4 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. P1 08:50SEAJ. McCannPP0–1
  2. P1 15:20VANL. Karlsson1–1
  3. P1 19:40SEAR. Winterton1–2
  4. P2 05:23VANE. Pettersson2–2
  5. SO 00:00VANL. OhgrenPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
49 shots
3
Final
100 shots
SEA
51 shots
2
VAN attackSEA attack
VAN SEA Goal
49
shots · 3 in
51
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANSEA
1 / 2
0.44 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.47 xG
0 / 9
1.04 xG
Medium
1 / 25
2.50 xG
1 / 54
0.84 xG
Low
0 / 31
0.45 xG

High-danger looks: VAN 1 of 2, SEA 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
K. Lankinen
+2.4
VAN · 37/39
B
J. Daccord
+0.3
SEA · 22/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks steal one from the Kraken against the run of play

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 12–14
  1. 08:50SEAJ. McCannpower play(V. Dunn, J. Eberle)0–1
  2. 15:20VANL. Karlsson(L. Ohgren)1–1
  3. 19:40SEAR. Winterton(J. Melanson, J. Daccord)1–2
2ndshots 9–6
  1. 05:23VANE. Pettersson(E. Kane, T. Willander)2–2
3rdshots 3–16no goals
    OTshots 0–3no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00VANL. Ohgrenpower play2–2

      score reads VAN–SEA

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.32
      VAN chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      +0.7
      Finishing
      Goals above what those chances were worth
      0.999
      VAN puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      50.8%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.32Expected goals4.42
      SEA 66% of the chance quality
      24Shots on goal39
      2High-danger chances7
      65All attempts (Corsi)63
      Adjusted for score: VAN 52% · SEA 49%
      Faceoffs · SEA won46%off50%neu43%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      VAN1 / 2 · 0.44 xG
      SEA1 / 7 · 1.47 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      VAN0 / 9 · 1.04 xG
      SEA1 / 25 · 2.50 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      VAN1 / 54 · 0.84 xG
      SEA0 / 31 · 0.45 xG

      SEA went 1-for-25 from medium danger on 2.50 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      VAN
      3 G · 2.32 xG · +0.7
      SEA
      2 G · 4.42 xG · -2.4
      012345

      VAN finished +0.7 against expected, SEA -2.4.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      VAN
      WRIST1/32
      SNAP1/7
      SLAP0/4
      TIP IN0/2
      BACKHAND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/1
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/18
      SEA
      WRIST1/25
      SNAP0/6
      SLAP1/6
      TIP IN0/5
      BACKHAND0/5
      DEFLECTED0/1
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/15
      VAN
      SEA
      Off the rush
      1 G on 25
      1.27 xG
      2 G on 30
      2.75 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 5
      0.59 xG
      0 G on 4
      0.55 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 1-for-32, SEA 1-for-25. SEA scored 2 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
      K. Lankinen
      VAN · 37/39 · .949
      +2.4
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/71.5+0.5
      Medium1/252.5+1.5
      Low0/310.5+0.5

      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

      J. Daccord
      SEA · 22/24 · .917
      +0.3
      saved above expected
      B
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/20.4-0.6
      Medium0/91.0+1.0
      Low1/540.8-0.2

      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

      100 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      VAN
      49 shots
      3
      Final
      100 shots
      SEA
      51 shots
      2
      VAN attackSEA attack
      VAN SEA Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, SEA 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
      V. Dunn
      #29 · D · SEA
      0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:27 on ice
      E. Pettersson
      #40 · C · VAN
      1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:31 on ice
      J. Eberle
      #7 · R · SEA
      0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:57 on ice · -1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Mon, Dec 29
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:23 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 VAN 2.4–2.6 SEA game with the Kraken at 54% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

      The underlying picture. Seattle's 46.0% xG% gives them a slight edge in expected chances over Vancouver's 44.0%, but possession is nearly identical (SEA 45.0% Corsi%, VAN 46.0%). The real divergence sits in PDO: Seattle's 1.011 indicates above-average finishing, while Vancouver's 0.974 signals they're running cold and due for positive regression.

      Form matters. The Kraken are -6 in goal differential over their last 10 games—a warning that their high PDO may not hold. For Vancouver, regression could arrive at precisely the moment they need it most.

      Rest and goaltending. Seattle enters on five days' rest while Vancouver comes in on one day, a meaningful advantage. T. Demko, on a back-to-back, is in limbo: expect either a backup start or a tired starter.

      Players to Watch

      Vancouver: Filip Chytil carries 3G and 0A at 1.03 xG/60, with 1 hard-chance goal and a 15.0% shooting rate. Drew O'Connor has 13G and 11A at 0.85 xG/60 with 3 hard-chance goals and an 11.8% shooting rate.

      Seattle: Shane Wright has 8G and 10A at 0.77 xG/60, with 4 hard-chance goals and a 10.4% shooting rate. Berkly Catton carries 6G and 8A at 0.68 xG/60 with 5 hard-chance goals and an 8.8% shooting rate.

      Defensive exposure. Victor Mancini is Vancouver's weak link on the backend; Chandler Stephenson plays that role for Seattle. Neither team scores off rebounds or hard chances—both at 0%—but if these top players stay hot, they could exploit these defensive liabilities.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      SEA 54%
      54%
      SEA
      Model favorite
      46%
      54%
      VAN50SEA

      SEA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.4–2.6 SEA; 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
      VAN← edge
      edge →SEA
      44.0%46.0%
      46.0%45.0%
      2.222.13
      2.812.51
      1.601.87
      2.561.95
      0.9741.011

      SEA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 1.011) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      VAN
      5-5-0
      -4 GD · 1d rest
      SEA
      4-6-0
      -6 GD · 5d rest
      0.974
      VAN PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.011
      SEA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Regression watch
      • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • T. Demko is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Kraken are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
      • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      • The Kraken have 4 more days of rest.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      VAN
      Expected in goal
      T. Demko
      back-to-back.889 last start
      Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.

      SEA
      Expected in goal
      J. Daccord
      5 days rest.946 last start
      Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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
      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
      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
      Keep going

      Where to next