Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
Breakdown · SEA at VAN

Kraken steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Kraken stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.70–4.63 and won anyway.

SEA 4 · VAN 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:50 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

Seattle's 4-3 shootout victory was theft. The Canucks controlled 63% of expected goals (4.63 to 2.70) and lost anyway.

The dominance was comprehensive. Vancouver held 46% of shot attempts, generated six high-danger chances to Seattle's four, yet quit the ice empty. The Canucks underperformed their xG by 1.63 goals; the Kraken overperformed by 1.30. That inversion is the evening's core.

J. Daccord was the margin. The Kraken goalie stopped 21 of 24 shots and saved 1.63 goals above expected—enough to transform what the play script should have mandated. T. Demko's 0.893 SV% on 25 saves for Vancouver was steady but insufficient against teammates who couldn't finish.

Seattle's edge came from specificity on the rush. The Kraken scored twice on 22 rush attempts. Vancouver created eight rebound opportunities and converted two; Seattle had four and none. The Canucks' power play (2 PPG on 12 shots, 1.73 xG) was dominant but insufficient.

Matty Beniers's wrist shot from the doorstep settled it in the shootout. One goal, in sudden death, erased an evening of Canuck control.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 2
SEA
4
VAN
3

Kraken steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

Chances 2.7 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
2.70
VAN
4.63
37% of the chances63%

The board read SEA 4, VAN 3. The chances read SEA 2.7, VAN 4.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
+1.3
goals above expected
SEA2.70 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN4.63 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 1.6 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 17:34SEAC. Fleury1–0
  2. P2 08:53SEAC. StephensonPP2–0
  3. P2 13:06VANK. SherwoodPP2–1
  4. P2 18:13SEAB. Meyers3–1
  5. P2 19:22VANJ. DeBruskPP3–2
  6. P3 06:15VANL. Karlsson3–3
  7. SO 00:00SEAM. BeniersPP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
42 shots
4
Final
99 shots
VAN
57 shots
3
SEA attackVAN attack
SEA VAN Goal
42
shots · 4 in
57
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEAVAN
1 / 4
0.83 xG
High danger
2 / 6
1.85 xG
1 / 13
1.33 xG
Medium
1 / 18
2.01 xG
1 / 28
0.54 xG
Low
0 / 54
0.77 xG

High-danger looks: SEA 1 of 4, VAN 2 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Daccord
+1.6
SEA · 21/24
D
T. Demko
−0.3
VAN · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kraken steal one from the Canucks 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 13–10
  1. 17:34SEAC. Fleury(J. Oleksiak, K. Kakko)1–0
2ndshots 6–8
  1. 08:53SEAC. Stephensonpower play(J. Eberle, J. McCann)2–0
  2. 13:06VANK. Sherwoodpower play(J. DeBrusk, T. Willander)2–1
  3. 18:13SEAB. Meyers(R. Winterton, J. Melanson)3–1
  4. 19:22VANJ. DeBruskpower play(B. Boeser, E. Pettersson)3–2
3rdshots 6–3
  1. 06:15VANL. Karlsson(F. Hronek, J. DeBrusk)3–3
OTshots 3–3no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00SEAM. Benierspower play3–3

    score reads SEA–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.70
    SEA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.028
    SEA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    36.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.70Expected goals4.63
    VAN 63% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal24
    4High-danger chances6
    45All attempts (Corsi)78
    Adjusted for score: SEA 34% · VAN 66%
    Faceoffs · VAN won64%off56%neu43%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SEA1 / 4 · 0.83 xG
    VAN2 / 6 · 1.85 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SEA1 / 13 · 1.33 xG
    VAN1 / 18 · 2.01 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SEA1 / 28 · 0.54 xG
    VAN0 / 54 · 0.77 xG

    VAN went 1-for-18 from medium danger on 2.01 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SEA
    4 G · 2.70 xG · +1.3
    VAN
    3 G · 4.63 xG · -1.6
    012345

    SEA finished +1.3 against expected, VAN -1.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    SEA
    SNAP1/10
    WRIST0/17
    SLAP1/7
    TIP IN1/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    OTHER0/6
    VAN
    SNAP1/24
    WRIST0/7
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN0/8
    BACKHAND1/5
    DEFLECTED1/3
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    OTHER0/24
    SEA
    VAN
    Off the rush
    2 G on 22
    1.65 xG
    1 G on 30
    2.99 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.60 xG
    2 G on 8
    1.03 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 1-for-10, VAN 1-for-24. 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
    J. Daccord
    SEA · 21/24 · .875
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.9-0.1
    Medium1/182.0+1.0
    Low0/540.8+0.8

    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 · 25/28 · .893
    -0.3
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/40.8-0.2
    Medium1/131.3+0.3
    Low1/280.5-0.5

    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

    99 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SEA
    42 shots
    4
    Final
    99 shots
    VAN
    57 shots
    3
    SEA attackVAN attack
    SEA VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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
    J. DeBrusk
    #74 · L · VAN
    1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 18:12 on ice · +1
    F. Hronek
    #17 · D · VAN
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 27:29 on ice · +1
    B. Boeser
    #6 · R · VAN
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:07 on ice · -2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Jan 2
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:48 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 2.5–2.5 game with Vancouver at 50% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The Canucks arrive vulnerable: -5 goal differential over their last 10 games, plus a PDO of 0.974 that signals they're running cold and overdue for positive regression.

    On the season's 5v5 metrics, Seattle holds a marginal edge in underlying quality. The Kraken post 46.0% xG% against Vancouver's 44.0%. The Canucks flip the volume advantage with 46.0% Corsi% to Seattle's 45.0%. Seattle's PDO of 1.011 suggests they've been luckier than their possession play alone warrants.

    Players to Watch

    Seattle

    • Shane Wright (0.77 xG/60, 8G 10A, 4 HD goals, 10.4% shooting)
    • Berkly Catton (0.68 xG/60, 6G 8A, 5 HD goals, 8.8% shooting)

    Vancouver

    • Filip Chytil (1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting)
    • Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting)

    Wright and Catton carry Seattle's offense. Wright's 0.77 xG/60 and 10.4% shooting rate mask an overproduction of high-danger chances. Catton's 5 HD goals on 0.68 xG/60 suggests he's consistently finding the soft ice, and an 8.8% shooting rate implies the production is sustainable.

    Filip Chytil presents the inverse profile. His 1.03 xG/60 leads this group, yet he has just 3 goals and a 15.0% shooting rate—underperformance that hints at variance correction. Drew O'Connor provides balance with 13 goals and an 11.8% shooting rate.

    Defensively, Seattle flags Chandler Stephenson as a liability; Victor Mancini holds that distinction for Vancouver. Both teams' tactical signatures appear incomplete: neither registers meaningful high-danger or rebound-goal rates, likely a charting gap rather than a strategic pattern.

    The Canucks' cold PDO is the real variable. If their 44.0% xG% control persists, positive regression could shift this matchup. But that 2.5–2.5 projection stands: this is a genuine coin flip.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VAN 50%
    50%
    VAN
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    SEA50VAN

    VAN by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SEA 2.5–2.5 VAN; 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 →VAN
    46.0%44.0%
    45.0%46.0%
    2.132.22
    2.512.81
    1.871.60
    1.952.56
    1.0110.974

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    SEA
    5-4-1
    +0 GD · 3d rest
    VAN
    5-5-0
    -5 GD · 2d rest
    1.011
    SEA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.974
    VAN 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
    • The Canucks are underwater at -5 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
    SEA
    Expected in goal
    J. Daccord
    3 days rest.917 last start
    Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    VAN
    Expected in goal
    T. Demko
    2 days rest.871 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
    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
    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