Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
Breakdown · DAL at SJS

Sharks edge the Stars in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

DAL 4 · SJS 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:07 AMxG: 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 Sharks' 5-4 overtime victory was built on a foundation of territorial control — San Jose commanded 56% of 5v5 expected goals (4.36–3.50) while holding 61% of shot attempts (31–20).

High-danger chances ran 8–7 in San Jose's favor. The Sharks scored four power-play goals on 14 power-play shots (1.10 xG), evidence of an offense that capitalized on opportunity.

The turning point arrived at 01:58 of overtime when T. Toffoli fired a slap shot from the high slot.

What's telling: Dallas nearly matched San Jose's efficiency on fast-break scoring despite being dominated overall. The Stars scored 2 goals on 16 rush chances; the Sharks scored 3 on 26 — nearly identical conversion rates despite the lopsided possession battle.

Goaltending was marginal. C. DeSmith (DAL) made 26 of 31 saves for a 0.839 SV%, allowing 0.64 more goals than expected. A. Nedeljkovic (SJS) stopped 16 of 20.

The Three Stars:

  • M. Celebrini (SJS, #71) — 3 assists in 27:39
  • T. Toffoli (SJS, #73) — 2 goals, 1 assist in 19:28
  • M. Rantanen (DAL, #96) — 1 goal, 1 assist in 21:35
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 10
DAL
4
SJS
5

Sharks edge the Stars in overtime

Chances 3.5 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
3.50
SJS
4.36
44% of the chances56%

The board read DAL 4, SJS 5. The chances read DAL 3.5, SJS 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+0.6
goals above expected
SJS4.36 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL3.50 expected · 4 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 07:33DALJ. Hryckowian1–0
  2. P1 19:03DALJ. RobertsonPP2–0
  3. P2 04:44SJSA. WennbergPP2–1
  4. P2 14:49SJSJ. SkinnerPP2–2
  5. P2 19:01DALK. Capobianco3–2
  6. P3 07:53DALM. Rantanen4–2
  7. P3 09:28SJST. ToffoliPP4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
31 shots
4
Final
76 shots
SJS
45 shots
5
DAL attackSJS attack
DAL SJS Goal
31
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALSJS
1 / 7
1.93 xG
High danger
1 / 8
1.82 xG
3 / 11
1.27 xG
Medium
3 / 17
2.03 xG
0 / 24
0.30 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.50 xG

High-danger looks: DAL 1 of 7, SJS 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
A. Nedeljkovic
−0.5
SJS · 16/20
D
C. DeSmith
−0.6
DAL · 26/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks edge the Stars 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 9–11
  1. 07:33DALJ. Hryckowian1–0
  2. 19:03DALJ. Robertsonpower play(M. Rantanen, R. Hintz)2–0
2ndshots 5–9
  1. 04:44SJSA. Wennbergpower play(M. Celebrini, T. Toffoli)2–1
  2. 14:49SJSJ. Skinnerpower play(I. Chernyshov, A. Gaudette)2–2
  3. 19:01DALK. Capobianco(M. Bourque, J. Robertson)3–2
3rdshots 6–8
  1. 07:53DALM. Rantanen(S. Steel, N. Lundkvist)4–2
  2. 09:28SJST. Toffolipower play(M. Celebrini, D. Orlov)4–3
  3. 15:01SJSA. Gaudette(S. Dickinson, C. Graf)4–4
OTshots 0–3
  1. 01:58SJST. Toffolipower play(W. Eklund, M. Celebrini)4–5

score reads DAL–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.36
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.988
SJS puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
58.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.50Expected goals4.36
SJS 56% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal31
7High-danger chances8
42All attempts (Corsi)60
Adjusted for score: DAL 38% · SJS 62%
Faceoffs · SJS won71%off43%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL1 / 7 · 1.93 xG
SJS1 / 8 · 1.82 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL3 / 11 · 1.27 xG
SJS3 / 17 · 2.03 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL0 / 24 · 0.30 xG
SJS1 / 35 · 0.50 xG

DAL went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.27 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
4 G · 3.50 xG · +0.5
SJS
5 G · 4.36 xG · +0.6
0123456

DAL finished +0.5 against expected, SJS +0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
WRIST3/22
BACKHAND1/5
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/2
OTHER0/11
SJS
WRIST2/30
BACKHAND1/5
SLAP1/6
TIP IN1/4
OTHER0/15
DAL
SJS
Off the rush
2 G on 16
1.79 xG
3 G on 26
2.64 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 5
1.33 xG
0 G on 6
1.04 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 3-for-22, SJS 2-for-30. SJS 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
C. DeSmith
DAL · 26/31 · .839
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/81.8+0.8
Medium3/172.0-1.0
Low1/350.5-0.5

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

A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 16/20 · .800
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.9+0.9
Medium3/111.3-1.7
Low0/240.3+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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DAL
31 shots
4
Final
76 shots
SJS
45 shots
5
DAL attackSJS attack
DAL SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL 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
0 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 27:39 on ice
T. Toffoli
#73 · C · SJS
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:28 on ice · -1
M. Rantanen
#96 · R · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:35 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 10
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:04 AMEdited 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

This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects DAL 2.5 - 2.4 SJS with the Stars at 50% win probability, meaning neither team has a meaningful edge in expected outcome.

The underlying play slightly favors Dallas. The Stars own 51.0% xG at 5v5, while San Jose sits at 48.0%. That's a measurable edge in shot quality, but not decisive — Corsi% is dead even at 47.0% for both teams, suggesting the Stars are converting chances at a higher rate than their volume would normally dictate. Dallas's PDO of 1.024 confirms it: they're running hot, and some regression is likely. San Jose's 0.998 PDO is exactly neutral, meaning they're getting what their underlying play deserves.

The Stars' advantage is real but fragile. Regression alone could swing this game.

On the Dallas side, Jason Robertson remains the team's engine, posting 0.96 xG/60 with 25G 21A and a shooting percentage of 12.4% across 2 HD goals. Michael Bunting offers secondary production at 0.83 xG/60 and 8G 14A, though his 7.6% shooting rate leaves room for variance. Dallas's offensive structure is a warning sign: 0% HD goals and 0% rebound goals means they're generating nothing but primary chances. Their defense faces a liability in Tyler Myers.

San Jose's offensive picture is constrained by injuries. Pavol Regenda, who led their scoring with 1.10 xG/60, 5G 1A, and 2 HD goals at a 16.1% shooting rate, is likely out. Igor Chernyshov, posting 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, and 1 HD goal with a 15.0% shooting rate, becomes the default scoring focal point — but he's also listed as San Jose's defensive weak link, creating a dual vulnerability. The Sharks mirror Dallas's offensive limitation: 0% HD goals, 0% rebound goals, another team struggling to generate secondary scoring avenues.

Both teams are one-dimensional offensively and bleeding depth. Dallas has the better foundation, but its PDO advantage is borrowed time. San Jose, despite losing Regenda, remains dangerous because it has no other choice. The Stars project to outscore them by a tenth of a goal—basically variance.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 51%
51%
DAL
Model favorite
51%
49%
DAL50SJS

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.5–2.4 SJS; 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
DAL← edge
edge →SJS
51.0%48.0%
47.0%47.0%
2.362.33
2.292.56
2.071.99
1.682.32
1.0240.998

DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 0.998) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DAL
4-3-3
+4 GD · 2d rest
SJS
6-4-0
-1 GD · 2d rest
1.024
DAL 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 Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DAL
Expected in goal
C. DeSmith
2 days rest.958 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SJS
Expected in goal
Y. Askarov
2 days rest.885 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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