Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Tue, Jan 6 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at EDM

Oilers run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Jan 6
NSHNashville Predators2EDMEdmonton Oilers6
The verdict · earned

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

NSH 2 · EDM 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:54 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

Edmonton's 6-2 victory was backed by overwhelming underlying numbers. The Oilers controlled 72% of 5v5 expected goals (6.41–2.49) and 62% of shot attempts (43–26). More telling: Edmonton generated 0.085 expected goals per shot to Nashville's 0.042. The Oilers dominated both volume and quality—the latter gap alone explains the lopsided result.

Edmonton created 12 high-danger chances to Nashville's 3. Connor McDavid's snap shot from the slot in the third period (19:03) was the turning point. McDavid finished with 3 goals in 22:28. L. Draisaitl added 1 goal and 2 assists, and V. Podkolzin contributed 2 assists.

The save totals reflected the possession gap. J. Saros faced 43 shots and stopped 37 (0.860 SV%). C. Ingram stopped 24 of 26 (0.923 SV%). Edmonton converted 4 goals on 41 rush chances and 2 of 6 rebound opportunities. Nashville managed 1 of 3.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 6
NSH
2
EDM
6

Oilers run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 6.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
2.49
EDM
6.41
28% of the chances72%

The board read NSH 2, EDM 6. The chances read NSH 2.5, EDM 6.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−0.4
goals above expected
EDM6.41 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH2.49 expected · 2 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 08:53EDMC. McDavidPP0–1
  2. P2 15:53EDMC. McDavidPP0–2
  3. P2 16:15EDMC. Lazar0–3
  4. P2 18:52EDMK. Kapanen0–4
  5. P3 03:48NSHR. O'Reilly1–4
  6. P3 04:03NSHN. Blankenburg2–4
  7. P3 13:46EDML. Draisaitl2–5
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
41 shots
2
Final
99 shots
EDM
58 shots
6
NSH attackEDM attack
NSH EDM Goal
41
shots · 2 in
58
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHEDM
1 / 3
0.70 xG
High danger
3 / 12
3.06 xG
0 / 11
1.16 xG
Medium
3 / 25
2.79 xG
1 / 46
0.63 xG
Low
0 / 38
0.56 xG

The Oilers buried 3 of 12 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
C. Ingram
+0.5
EDM · 24/26
B
J. Saros
+0.4
NSH · 37/43
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Predators 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 9–12
  1. 08:53EDMC. McDavidpower play(E. Bouchard, L. Draisaitl)0–1
2ndshots 7–16
  1. 15:53EDMC. McDavidpower play0–2
  2. 16:15EDMC. Lazar(M. Savoie, M. Janmark)0–3
  3. 18:52EDMK. Kapanen(L. Draisaitl, V. Podkolzin)0–4
3rdshots 10–15
  1. 03:48NSHR. O'Reilly(N. Hague, L. Evangelista)1–4
  2. 04:03NSHN. Blankenburg(R. Schaefer, M. Bunting)2–4
  3. 13:46EDML. Draisaitl(K. Kapanen, V. Podkolzin)2–5
  4. 19:03EDMC. McDavid(R. Nugent-Hopkins, M. Ekholm)2–6

score reads NSH–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.41
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.4
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.047
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
55.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.49Expected goals6.41
EDM 72% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal43
3High-danger chances12
60All attempts (Corsi)75
Adjusted for score: NSH 50% · EDM 50%
Faceoffs · EDM won64%off57%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NSH1 / 3 · 0.70 xG
EDM3 / 12 · 3.06 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NSH0 / 11 · 1.16 xG
EDM3 / 25 · 2.79 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NSH1 / 46 · 0.63 xG
EDM0 / 38 · 0.56 xG

NSH went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.16 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NSH
2 G · 2.49 xG · -0.5
EDM
6 G · 6.41 xG · -0.4
01234567

NSH finished -0.5 against expected, EDM -0.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NSH
SNAP2/6
WRIST0/22
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/19
EDM
SNAP2/36
WRIST3/7
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/2
OTHER0/17
NSH
EDM
Off the rush
0 G on 27
1.51 xG
4 G on 41
5.14 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.46 xG
2 G on 6
1.04 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NSH went 2-for-6, EDM 2-for-36. EDM scored 4 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. Saros
NSH · 37/43 · .860
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/123.1+0.1
Medium3/252.8-0.2
Low0/380.6+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

C. Ingram
EDM · 24/26 · .923
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.7-0.3
Medium0/111.2+1.2
Low1/460.6-0.4

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

99 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NSH
41 shots
2
Final
99 shots
EDM
58 shots
6
NSH attackEDM attack
NSH EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH left, EDM 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. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
3 G · 0 A · 10 SOG · 22:28 on ice · +2
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 19:12 on ice
V. Podkolzin
#92 · R · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:40 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 6
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:37 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 2.5–2.7 goals per team with Edmonton at 55% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Edmonton owns the underlying play decisively: 52.0% expected goals to Nashville's 49.0% at 5v5. The Oilers' PDO sits at 0.982, running cold against Nashville's 0.992. When a team generates chances but converts at below-average rates, positive regression is waiting. The teams split the corsi wars evenly at 50.0% each.

Nashville's offense rests on Zachary L'Heureux (0.85 xG/60, 4 goals, 16.0% shooting) and Filip Forsberg (0.80 xG/60, 23 goals, 17 assists, 13.6% shooting). Zach Hyman (1.23 xG/60, 14 goals, 13 assists) and Connor McDavid (0.92 xG/60, 25 goals, 33 assists, 13.7% shooting) out-generate them. Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's defensive liability; Jake Walman is Edmonton's.

Both teams sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate—neither has solved second-chance finishing. The model has seen enough to give Edmonton 55%.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 55%
55%
EDM
Model favorite
45%
55%
NSH50EDM

EDM by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 2.5–2.7 EDM; 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
NSH← edge
edge →EDM
49.0%52.0%
50.0%50.0%
2.482.64
2.582.47
1.842.13
2.212.29
0.9920.982

EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 vs 0.982) says NSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NSH
7-3-0
+4 GD · 2d rest
EDM
5-5-0
-3 GD · 3d rest
0.992
NSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NSH
Expected in goal
J. Saros
2 days rest.870 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM
Expected in goal
C. Pickard
3 days rest.857 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page