Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Wed, Dec 31 · the slate
Breakdown · MIN at SJS

Sharks edge the Wild in a shootout

Final / OTWed, Dec 31
MINMinnesota Wild3SJSSan Jose Sharks4
The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.52–2.62 and won anyway.

MIN 3 · SJS 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:32 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

San Jose heisted this one. Minnesota controlled 57% of expected goals at 5v5 (3.52–2.62), outplaying San Jose in every measure that predicts winners — yet the Sharks walked out with the shootout victory. That gap requires elite goaltending.

Y. Askarov provided it. The Sharks' goalie made 20 saves on 23 shots for a 0.870 SV%, overperforming his expected save percentage by 0.52 goals. More importantly, he stopped all 6 high-danger Minnesota chances — the game's margin. J. Wallstedt (MIN) made 25 saves on 28 shots (0.893 SV%), a strong performance that still fell short when it mattered.

San Jose held 55% of shot attempts (28–23 on goal), but Minnesota generated the quality. The Wild created 6 high-danger chances to San Jose's 4 and converted zero — a rarity that won't repeat. San Jose scored 3 goals from low-danger spots, the kind Askarov should have stopped but didn't.

Both teams were equally dangerous off the rush: 3 goals each on 25 chances. Neither converted their rebound opportunities (San Jose created 3, Minnesota 4). William Eklund's wrist shot from the high slot in the shootout determined it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 31
MIN
3
SJS
4

Sharks edge the Wild in a shootout

Chances 3.5 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.52
SJS
2.62
57% of the chances43%

The board read MIN 3, SJS 4. The chances read MIN 3.5, SJS 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+1.4
goals above expected
SJS2.62 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN3.52 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 10:38MINV. Tarasenko1–0
  2. P2 01:14SJSI. Chernyshov1–1
  3. P2 16:47SJSJ. SkinnerPP1–2
  4. P3 04:16SJSM. Celebrini1–3
  5. P3 06:40MINM. Foligno2–3
  6. P3 08:47MINM. Zuccarello3–3
  7. SO 00:00SJSM. CelebriniPP3–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
44 shots
3
Final
86 shots
SJS
42 shots
5
MIN attackSJS attack
MIN SJS Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

44
shots · 3 in
42
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINSJS
0 / 6
1.41 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.82 xG
0 / 14
1.55 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.10 xG
3 / 44
0.57 xG
Low
1 / 39
0.69 xG

The Wild went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
Y. Askarov
+0.5
SJS · 20/23
D
J. Wallstedt
−0.4
MIN · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks edge the Wild in a shootout

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 8–8
  1. 10:38MINV. Tarasenko(R. Hartman, V. Hinostroza)1–0
2ndshots 6–9
  1. 01:14SJSI. Chernyshov(M. Celebrini, W. Eklund)1–1
  2. 16:47SJSJ. Skinnerpower play(D. Orlov)1–2
3rdshots 6–9
  1. 04:16SJSM. Celebrini(I. Chernyshov)1–3
  2. 06:40MINM. Foligno(Z. Bogosian, J. Middleton)2–3
  3. 08:47MINM. Zuccarello3–3
OTshots 3–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00SJSM. Celebrinipower play3–3
    2. 00:00SJSW. Eklundpower play3–3

    score reads MIN–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.62
    SJS chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.4
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.009
    SJS puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    45.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.52Expected goals2.62
    MIN 57% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal28
    6High-danger chances4
    64All attempts (Corsi)54
    Adjusted for score: MIN 54% · SJS 46%
    Faceoffs · SJS won50%off56%neu63%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MIN0 / 6 · 1.41 xG
    SJS1 / 4 · 0.82 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MIN0 / 14 · 1.55 xG
    SJS1 / 11 · 1.10 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MIN3 / 44 · 0.57 xG
    SJS1 / 39 · 0.69 xG

    MIN went 3-for-44 from low danger on 0.57 expected goals — 2.4 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MIN
    3 G · 3.52 xG · -0.5
    SJS
    4 G · 2.62 xG · +1.4
    012345

    MIN finished -0.5 against expected, SJS +1.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MIN
    WRIST1/26
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/3
    SNAP2/3
    BACKHAND0/4
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/22
    SJS
    WRIST3/25
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/5
    SNAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/14
    MIN
    SJS
    Off the rush
    3 G on 25
    2.03 xG
    3 G on 25
    1.86 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.99 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.38 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 1-for-26, SJS 3-for-25. MIN 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. Wallstedt
    MIN · 25/28 · .893
    -0.4
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/40.8-0.2
    Medium1/111.1+0.1
    Low1/390.7-0.3

    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

    Y. Askarov
    SJS · 20/23 · .870
    +0.5
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.4+1.4
    Medium0/141.6+1.6
    Low3/440.6-2.4

    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

    86 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MIN
    44 shots
    3
    Final
    86 shots
    SJS
    42 shots
    5
    MIN attackSJS attack
    MIN SJS Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN 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
    M. Celebrini
    #71 · C · SJS
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:59 on ice
    I. Chernyshov
    #92 · L · SJS
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 16:08 on ice
    D. Orlov
    #9 · D · SJS
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:21 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Dec 31
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:31 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 2.6–2.5 score favoring Minnesota, with the Wild at 51% win probability. This is about as clean a pick'em as exists.

    Minnesota's edge comes from controlling the play. The Wild own 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to San Jose's 48.0%, a modest but consistent advantage that underpins the narrow model projection. Corsi% widens slightly in Minnesota's favor (48.0% to 47.0%), though the parity in underlying metrics reflects how close this matchup truly is.

    The difference between these teams will come down to execution, not volume. Minnesota's weapons start with Matt Boldy, who generates 0.89 expected goals per 60 minutes and carries 22 goals and 18 assists with a 13.7% shooting rate and 5 high-danger goals. Robby Fabbri sits close behind at 0.88 xG/60, though he's converted just 2 goals on 3 assists with only 1 high-danger goal so far—a 6.9% shooting rate that suggests either variance or opportunity.

    San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, whose 1.10 xG/60 represents the highest offensive output in this matchup. He's scored 5 goals and 1 assist with 2 high-danger goals. Regenda's 16.1% shooting rate implies efficiency that may not hold, but his volume is undeniable. Igor Chernyshov posts 0.91 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists, including 1 high-danger goal, and a 15.0% shooting rate that points to clinical finishing.

    Where each team breaks down defensively remains vague—Minnesota lists Matt Kiersted as a weak link, while San Jose names Igor Chernyshov in that role, though the data here is sparse. Neither team has converted high-danger chances at notable rates this season, which flattens the game further toward luck.

    The Wild's 51% edge in the model is your only real signal. Take it or leave it.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    MIN 51%
    51%
    MIN
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    MIN50SJS

    MIN by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.6–2.5 SJS; 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
    MIN← edge
    edge →SJS
    52.0%48.0%
    48.0%47.0%
    2.552.33
    2.402.56
    2.041.99
    1.932.32
    1.0070.998

    MIN holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 0.998) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 0–10
    MIN
    8-1-1
    +18 GD · 1d rest
    SJS
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.007
    MIN 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 Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    MIN
    Matt Boldy22G 18A
    0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Robby Fabbri2G 3A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% 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