Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Sun, Jan 11 · the slate
Breakdown · VGK at SJS

Golden Knights run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSun, Jan 11
VGKVegas Golden Knights7SJSSan Jose Sharks2
The verdict · earned

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

VGK 7 · SJS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:47 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 Golden Knights beat the Sharks 7–2, but the scoreboard masked the overperformance. Vegas scored seven while their expected goals totaled 4.43—a 2.57 goal advantage over what their quality dictated.

The underlying control was decisive. The Golden Knights held 63% of 5v5 expected goals, 4.43 to 2.57. They generated higher-quality chances at 0.079 xG per shot versus San Jose's 0.056. The Sharks managed just 38% of shot attempts (20–32).

But the lopsided scoreline conceals how luck skewed the result. Vegas scored twice from low-danger spots—the kind teams expect their goalies to stop. Y. Askarov underperformed by 1.57 goals. C. Lindbom, meanwhile, earned his keep: 18 saves on 20 shots, beating expectations by 0.57.

The Golden Knights thrived at specific moments. Their power play was dominant—two goals on thirteen shots, 1.19 xG. Both struck twice on the rush (Vegas 2 on 23 chances, San Jose 2 on 22), but Vegas's structural advantage controlled the game.

Vegas crashed for five rebound opportunities, converting one. San Jose couldn't generate anything through the cycle.

Hertl led the charge with two goals and three assists in just over fifteen minutes. Dorofeyev added a goal and two assists in 18:25. Stone finished with three assists in 17:44, orchestrating from the perimeter. That trio's productivity on top of Vegas's structural advantage explains the margin.

The scoreline reads like a blowout, and it was—just not because San Jose collapsed. Vegas's elite finishing turned dominance into a rout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 11
VGK
7
SJS
2

Golden Knights run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.4 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
4.43
SJS
2.57
63% of the chances37%

The board read VGK 7, SJS 2. The chances read VGK 4.4, SJS 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
+2.6
goals above expected
VGK4.43 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS2.57 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Golden Knights scored 2.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 07:19VGKJ. Eichel1–0
  2. P1 09:33SJSC. Graf1–1
  3. P1 10:57VGKP. DorofeyevPP2–1
  4. P2 04:19VGKJ. Eichel3–1
  5. P2 11:00VGKT. HertlPP4–1
  6. P2 12:25VGKZ. Whitecloud5–1
  7. P2 16:29SJSA. Wennberg5–2
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VGK
41 shots
7
Final
75 shots
SJS
34 shots
2
VGK attackSJS attack
VGK SJS Goal
41
shots · 7 in
34
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VGKSJS
2 / 6
1.73 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.46 xG
3 / 17
2.11 xG
Medium
2 / 16
1.64 xG
2 / 33
0.59 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.47 xG

The Golden Knights buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
C. Lindbom
+0.6
VGK · 18/20
F
Y. Askarov
−1.6
SJS · 25/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights run the Sharks 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 13–9
  1. 07:19VGKJ. Eichel(I. Barbashev, J. Lauzon)1–0
  2. 09:33SJSC. Graf(J. Skinner)1–1
  3. 10:57VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play(T. Hertl, M. Stone)2–1
2ndshots 10–5
  1. 04:19VGKJ. Eichel(M. Stone)3–1
  2. 11:00VGKT. Hertlpower play(M. Stone, P. Dorofeyev)4–1
  3. 12:25VGKZ. Whitecloud(T. Hertl, N. Hanifin)5–1
  4. 16:29SJSA. Wennberg(T. Liljegren, T. Toffoli)5–2
3rdshots 9–6
  1. 17:03VGKS. Theodoreempty net(T. Hertl)6–2
  2. 18:59VGKT. Hertl(P. Dorofeyev, N. Hanifin)7–2

score reads VGK–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.43
VGK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.081
VGK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.43Expected goals2.57
VGK 63% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal20
6High-danger chances2
56All attempts (Corsi)46
Adjusted for score: VGK 50% · SJS 50%
Faceoffs · SJS won41%off40%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VGK2 / 6 · 1.73 xG
SJS0 / 2 · 0.46 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VGK3 / 17 · 2.11 xG
SJS2 / 16 · 1.64 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VGK2 / 33 · 0.59 xG
SJS0 / 28 · 0.47 xG

VGK went 2-for-33 from low danger on 0.59 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
7 G · 4.43 xG · +2.6
SJS
2 G · 2.57 xG · -0.6
012345678

VGK finished +2.6 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
VGK
WRIST4/24
SLAP2/8
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
SNAP1/2
OTHER0/15
SJS
WRIST2/19
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/4
SNAP0/0
OTHER0/12
VGK
SJS
Off the rush
2 G on 23
2.51 xG
2 G on 22
1.87 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 5
0.75 xG
0 G on 2
0.28 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 4-for-24, SJS 2-for-19. VGK 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
C. Lindbom
VGK · 18/20 · .900
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium2/161.6-0.4
Low0/280.5+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

Y. Askarov
SJS · 25/31 · .806
-1.6
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.7-0.3
Medium3/172.1-0.9
Low2/330.6-1.4

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VGK
41 shots
7
Final
75 shots
SJS
34 shots
2
VGK attackSJS attack
VGK SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK 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
T. Hertl
#48 · C · VGK
2 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 15:35 on ice · +3
P. Dorofeyev
#16 · R · VGK
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:25 on ice · +1
M. Stone
#61 · R · VGK
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 17:44 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Jan 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:23 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

The model projects a 2.5–2.3 edge to Vegas in expected goals, which translates to a 54% Golden Knights win probability. This is as close to a pure pick'em as hockey projection gets.

The edge belongs to Vegas on the underlying numbers. The Golden Knights own 54.0% of 5v5 expected goals; the Sharks get 48.0%. Corsi splits tell the same story—VGK at 52.0%, SJS at 47.0%—which means Vegas should win the territorial battle and generate more chances from better positions.

But Vegas's PDO sits at 0.983, meaning the team is running cold on both its shooting percentage and goaltending performance. This is due for positive regression; the underlying play is tracking better than the score sheet suggests.

San Jose has the inverse problem. The Sharks' PDO is 0.998, very close to league average, which means their results are tracking their process almost exactly. There's less room for the Sharks to get lucky.

One complication: A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back for San Jose. Watch for either a backup start or a tired starter.

The player quality on both sides is complicated by availability. Brandon Saad carried 0.91 expected goals per 60 minutes and scored at 4.1% on the season—efficient by volume—but is marked as likely out. Tomas Hertl, meanwhile, is available; he's generating 0.88 xG/60 and converting at 4.3%. Hertl's 5 goals on 17 assists makes him a depth-line producer who carries secondary scoring weight.

For San Jose, Pavol Regenda was carrying the highest rate in this preview at 1.10 xG/60 and converting at an unsustainable 16.1%—that kind of shooting percentage doesn't hold—but he is also likely out. Igor Chernyshov remains available and is the Sharks' most dangerous forward; his 0.91 xG/60 matches Saad's, but Chernyshov's 15.0% conversion rate is also too high to bank on. He's a six-goal player on 8 assists.

On defense, Rasmus Andersson is the weak link for Vegas. For San Jose, it's Chernyshov—which is odd given his role as the team's most prolific forward. That dual-threat status makes him a target for Vegas's cycle game.

The absence of Brandon Saad and Pavol Regenda removes two high-variance players from this matchup. Vegas's forward depth becomes an asset; San Jose's does not.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 54%
54%
VGK
Model favorite
54%
46%
VGK50SJS

VGK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VGK 2.5–2.3 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
VGK← edge
edge →SJS
54.0%48.0%
52.0%47.0%
2.522.33
2.112.56
2.121.99
2.102.32
0.9830.998

VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 0.998) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
VGK
3-5-2
-4 GD · 2d rest
SJS
6-4-0
-3 GD · 1d rest
0.983
VGK 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 Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
VGK
Expected in goal
A. Schmid
2 days rest.917 last start
Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
back-to-back.800 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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