Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Tue, Jan 13 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at OTT

Senators hold off the Canucks

FinalTue, Jan 13
VANVancouver Canucks1OTTOttawa Senators2
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 1 · OTT 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:34 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

Ottawa dominated in shot volume and expected goal quality but only narrowly won because both teams catastrophically underperformed their xG. The Senators held 67% of shot attempts (40-20) and 56% of expected goals (4.31-3.34), yet they scored just 2 goals against only 1 for Vancouver — a narrow margin that defies the underlying gulf.

The culprit was accuracy. Ottawa finished 0-for-6 on high-danger opportunities and wasted 2.31 goals' worth of chances. Vancouver went 0-for-7 and wasted 2.34 goals' worth. Both teams crashed the net effectively — generating 3 and 8 rebound opportunities respectively — but converted neither. That won't happen often.

K. Lankinen (VAN) saved 38 of 40 shots (0.950 SV%) at +2.31 above expectation. L. Meriläinen (OTT) saved 19 of 20 (0.950 SV%) at +2.34 above expectation. Lankinen faced twice the volume and still held Vancouver within one.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 13
VAN
1
OTT
2

Senators hold off the Canucks

Chances 3.3 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
3.34
OTT
4.31
44% of the chances56%

The board read VAN 1, OTT 2. The chances read VAN 3.3, OTT 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−2.3
goals above expected
OTT4.31 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN3.34 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 2.3 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 15:36OTTA. Zub0–1
  2. P1 15:51OTTJ. Spence0–2
  3. P3 01:17VANE. Pettersson1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
36 shots
1
Final
91 shots
OTT
55 shots
2
VAN attackOTT attack
VAN OTT Goal
36
shots · 1 in
55
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANOTT
0 / 7
1.54 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.35 xG
1 / 13
1.33 xG
Medium
1 / 17
2.06 xG
0 / 35
0.47 xG
Low
1 / 52
0.90 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
L. Meriläinen
+2.3
OTT · 19/20
A
K. Lankinen
+2.3
VAN · 38/40
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators hold off the Canucks

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 6–14
  1. 15:36OTTA. Zub(S. Pinto, M. Amadio)0–1
  2. 15:51OTTJ. Spence(D. Batherson, T. Stützle)0–2
2ndshots 5–18no goals
    3rdshots 9–8
    1. 01:17VANE. Pettersson(L. Karlsson)1–2

    score reads VAN–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.31
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.008
    OTT puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    57.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.34Expected goals4.31
    OTT 56% of the chance quality
    20Shots on goal40
    7High-danger chances6
    55All attempts (Corsi)75
    Adjusted for score: VAN 47% · OTT 53%
    Faceoffs · OTT won71%off67%neu39%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VAN0 / 7 · 1.54 xG
    OTT0 / 6 · 1.35 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VAN1 / 13 · 1.33 xG
    OTT1 / 17 · 2.06 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VAN0 / 35 · 0.47 xG
    OTT1 / 52 · 0.90 xG

    VAN went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.54 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VAN
    1 G · 3.34 xG · -2.3
    OTT
    2 G · 4.31 xG · -2.3
    012345

    VAN finished -2.3 against expected, OTT -2.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VAN
    WRIST0/17
    SNAP1/8
    TIP IN0/1
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    POKE0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/19
    OTT
    WRIST2/28
    SNAP0/4
    TIP IN0/11
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/5
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/20
    VAN
    OTT
    Off the rush
    1 G on 22
    2.04 xG
    1 G on 37
    3.13 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 8
    1.19 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.40 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-17, OTT 2-for-28.

    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
    K. Lankinen
    VAN · 38/40 · .950
    +2.3
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.4+1.4
    Medium1/172.1+1.1
    Low1/520.9-0.1

    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

    L. Meriläinen
    OTT · 19/20 · .950
    +2.3
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/71.5+1.5
    Medium1/131.3+0.3
    Low0/350.5+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

    91 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    VAN
    36 shots
    1
    Final
    91 shots
    OTT
    55 shots
    2
    VAN attackOTT attack
    VAN OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, OTT 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
    A. Zub
    #2 · D · OTT
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:22 on ice · +1
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 17:47 on ice · +1
    S. Pinto
    #12 · C · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:45 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Jan 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:30 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 favors Ottawa at 62% win probability, projecting a 2.2–2.9 final. The Senators own every underlying metric and play a territorial game Vancouver can't match. The one thing keeping this from a comfortable route is PDO—but not theirs.

    Ottawa's 56.0% 5v5 xG advantage over Vancouver's 44.0% reflects complete dominance in shot quality. The Corsi tilts the same way: 53.0% for the Senators, 46.0% for the Canucks. That's not variance. That's one team outmaneuvering the other at even strength. Brady Tkachuk has been the fulcrum, generating 1.19 xG per 60 while piling up 11 goals and 20 assists. Dylan Cozens adds 1.00 xG/60 to the mix—a balanced, deep attack that doesn't rely on one hot stick.

    Vancouver arrives offline on both fronts. The Canucks sit -20 in goal differential over their last 10 games, and their season 0.974 PDO screams cold-running. Filip Chytil (1.03 xG/60, 3 goals, 15.0% shooting) and Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11.8% shooting) are generating chances, but the puck isn't going in the way it should. That discrepancy is the only reason this game feels close in model space.

    Ottawa isn't without slack. The Senators are -10 over their last 10 as well—not a collapse, but unmistakably below their talent level. Both teams carry season PDO readings (VAN 0.974, OTT 0.993) that predict mean reversion. The difference is Ottawa's reversion would only reinforce what the underlying play already suggests: a dominant position. Vancouver's would offer sudden hope where none exists structurally.

    The tactical edges matter at the margins. Tkachuk will chase neutralization attempts, but at 1.19 xG/60 and 2 hard-drive goals, he's operating in a different tier than Chytil's 3 marks. Cozens (9.5% shooting) and O'Connor (11.8%) both have some luck baked into their recent production, but only O'Connor needs luck to be dangerous; Cozens is doing damage at the rim anyway. Victor Mancini's weakness on Vancouver's blue line and Nick Jensen's on Ottawa's don't alter the territorial balance when the Senators are this dominant in puck possession.

    The Canucks' 0% hard-drive and rebound conversion rates hint at a team missing the interior grip that builds volume. Ottawa owns volume. That's the game. PDO regression might narrow Vancouver's margin of defeat, but it won't narrow the gap in underlying play.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 62%
    62%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    38%
    62%
    VAN50OTT

    OTT by 24 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.2–2.9 OTT; 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
    VAN← edge
    edge →OTT
    44.0%56.0%
    46.0%53.0%
    2.222.66
    2.812.12
    1.602.18
    2.561.99
    0.9740.993

    OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    VAN
    2-6-2
    -20 GD · 2d rest
    OTT
    3-6-1
    -10 GD · 2d rest
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Senators are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Canucks are underwater at -20 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
    VAN
    Expected in goal
    K. Lankinen
    2 days rest.889 last start
    Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Meriläinen
    2 days rest.857 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
    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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page