Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Wed, Jan 7 · the slate
Breakdown · SJS at LAK

Sharks edge the Kings in overtime

Final / OTWed, Jan 7
SJSSan Jose Sharks4LAKLos Angeles Kings3
The verdict · earned

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

SJS 4 · LAK 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:43 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's 4-3 overtime win was built on genuine superiority—the Sharks controlled 55% of 5v5 expected goals (4.78 to 3.90), a margin that forecasted the result. Los Angeles stayed competitive on volume, holding 48% of shot attempts (26 on goal to 28), but high-danger chances revealed the gap: nine for San Jose, seven for Los Angeles.

The Sharks' power play was the difference. Three goals on 19 shots (2.18 expected goals) is dominance by any measure. San Jose also thrived in transition, scoring twice on 30 rush chances—a conversion rate that makes defensive gaps fatal. Y. Askarov made 23 saves on 26 shots (0.885 save percentage, 0.90 better than expected), while D. Kuemper stopped 24 of 28 (0.857, 0.78 better than expected). Both performed above expected levels, a sign the game hinged on special teams and transition play, not starter depth.

The Kings generated five rebound opportunities without converting; the Sharks six with the same empty result. Positioning met execution, and neither prevailed.

William Eklund's wrist shot from the slot ended it at 3:08 of overtime.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 7
SJS
4
LAK
3

Sharks edge the Kings in overtime

Chances 4.8 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
4.78
LAK
3.90
55% of the chances45%

The board read SJS 4, LAK 3. The chances read SJS 4.8, LAK 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
−0.8
goals above expected
SJS4.78 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.90 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. P2 04:10SJST. ToffoliPP1–0
  2. P2 11:34LAKA. Turcotte1–1
  3. P3 05:38SJSA. GaudettePP2–1
  4. P3 06:40LAKK. Fiala2–2
  5. P3 17:50LAKA. Laferriere2–3
  6. P3 18:53SJSM. CelebriniPP3–3
  7. OT 03:08SJSW. Eklund4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
46 shots
4
Final
83 shots
LAK
37 shots
3
SJS attackLAK attack
SJS LAK Goal
46
shots · 4 in
37
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSLAK
2 / 9
2.01 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.66 xG
2 / 19
2.21 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.69 xG
0 / 32
0.56 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.55 xG

The Sharks buried 2 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
Y. Askarov
+0.9
SJS · 23/26
B+
D. Kuemper
+0.8
LAK · 24/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks edge the Kings in overtime

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 6–8no goals
    2ndshots 13–10
    1. 04:10SJST. Toffolipower play(A. Wennberg, M. Celebrini)1–0
    2. 11:34LAKA. Turcotte(K. Fiala)1–1
    3rdshots 7–7
    1. 05:38SJSA. Gaudettepower play(T. Liljegren, J. Skinner)2–1
    2. 06:40LAKK. Fiala(A. Turcotte, J. Edmundson)2–2
    3. 17:50LAKA. Laferriere(J. Edmundson, C. Ceci)2–3
    4. 18:53SJSM. Celebrinipower play3–3
    OTshots 2–1
    1. 03:08SJSW. Eklund(M. Celebrini)4–3

    score reads SJS–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.78
    SJS chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.013
    SJS puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    51.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.78Expected goals3.90
    SJS 55% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal26
    9High-danger chances7
    60All attempts (Corsi)56
    Adjusted for score: SJS 51% · LAK 49%
    Faceoffs · LAK won32%off44%neu58%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SJS2 / 9 · 2.01 xG
    LAK1 / 7 · 1.66 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SJS2 / 19 · 2.21 xG
    LAK1 / 12 · 1.69 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SJS0 / 32 · 0.56 xG
    LAK1 / 37 · 0.55 xG

    LAK went 1-for-12 from medium danger on 1.69 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SJS
    4 G · 4.78 xG · -0.8
    LAK
    3 G · 3.90 xG · -0.9
    0123456

    SJS finished -0.8 against expected, LAK -0.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    SJS
    WRIST3/23
    TIP IN1/9
    SNAP0/8
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/14
    LAK
    WRIST2/23
    TIP IN1/4
    SNAP0/1
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/19
    SJS
    LAK
    Off the rush
    2 G on 30
    3.14 xG
    1 G on 17
    2.19 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 6
    0.78 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.87 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 3-for-23, LAK 2-for-23. SJS 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
    Y. Askarov
    SJS · 23/26 · .885
    +0.9
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.7+0.7
    Medium1/121.7+0.7
    Low1/370.6-0.5

    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

    D. Kuemper
    LAK · 24/28 · .857
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.0+0.0
    Medium2/192.2+0.2
    Low0/320.6+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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SJS
    46 shots
    4
    Final
    83 shots
    LAK
    37 shots
    3
    SJS attackLAK attack
    SJS LAK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, LAK 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 · 2 A · 7 SOG · 25:12 on ice · +2
    K. Fiala
    #22 · L · LAK
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:26 on ice · +2
    J. Edmundson
    #6 · D · LAK
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:13 on ice · +3
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Jan 7
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:42 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 pregame model favors Los Angeles with a 56% win probability, projecting a 2.3–2.6 game. The advantage splits two ways: territorial control and the schedule.

    Los Angeles dominates the underlying metrics. At 5v5, the Kings own 52.0% expected goals to San Jose's 48.0%, and they drive 52.0% Corsi against the Sharks' 47.0%. Territorial advantage compounds in hockey—more time in the offensive zone creates more chances and shortens opposition depth.

    The rest edge could prove decisive. Los Angeles plays on 1 day of rest; San Jose has 4. The Sharks' longer break theoretically favors recovery and preparation, but the Kings' fresher legs could press high early and force mistakes before San Jose's scheme takes hold.

    Watch D. Kuemper on the back half of a back-to-back. Los Angeles might lean on a backup or run Kuemper tired—either option creates exposure at this margin.

    San Jose relies on Pavol Regenda for offense—1.10 expected goals per 60, 5 goals and 1 assist, 2 high-danger goals, 16.1% shooting—but he is marked likely inactive. Igor Chernyshov becomes the primary engine: 0.91 xG/60, 6 goals and 8 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 15.0% shooting.

    Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere: 0.87 xG/60, 16 goals and 18 assists, 2 high-danger goals at 9.9% efficiency. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals and 4 assists) provides secondary scoring.

    Both teams register 0% for high-danger and rebound goals—whichever team converts from these situations first gains an edge. The Sharks' defensive liability is Chernyshov; Adrian Kempe carries the same burden for Los Angeles.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 56%
    56%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    SJS50LAK

    LAK by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.3–2.6 LAK; 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 →LAK
    48.0%52.0%
    47.0%52.0%
    2.332.42
    2.562.20
    1.991.85
    2.321.71
    0.9981.002

    LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.002) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    SJS
    6-4-0
    -3 GD · 4d rest
    LAK
    4-6-0
    -3 GD · 1d rest
    0.998
    SJS PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.002
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Sharks have 3 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    SJS
    Expected in goal
    A. Nedeljkovic
    4 days rest.750 last start
    Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    back-to-back.943 last start
    Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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.

    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
    LAK
    Alex Laferriere16G 18A
    0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
    Jared Wright0G 4A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page