Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
Breakdown · EDM at VAN

Oilers shut out the Canucks, 6-0

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 6 · VAN 0
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:23 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

Edmonton's 6-0 scoreline masks surface-level parity—Vancouver held 47% of shot attempts (31–35), generating 3.50 expected goals. The chasm opened in conversion. The Canucks scored 0 on that 3.50 xG; T. Jarry's 3.50 saves above expectation effectively swallowed the entire margin.

Quality separated the teams. Edmonton's shots averaged higher value (0.102 expected goals per attempt vs. 0.067), and Jarry was impenetrable on high-danger chances, turning aside all 6 of Vancouver's most dangerous looks. The Oilers capitalized off the rush with 6 goals from 40 chances; the Canucks created 4 rebound opportunities and converted none.

R. Nugent-Hopkins orchestrated the attack (2A, 18:16). J. Roslovic (2G, 16:55) and K. Kapanen (2G, 16:34) supplied the finish. Edmonton's 10 high-danger opportunities yielded six goals; Vancouver's 6 yielded nothing.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 17
EDM
6
VAN
0

Oilers shut out the Canucks, 6-0

Chances 6.8 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
6.76
VAN
3.50
66% of the chances34%

The board read EDM 6, VAN 0. The chances read EDM 6.8, VAN 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−0.8
goals above expected
EDM6.76 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN3.50 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 3.5 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. P2 03:11EDMJ. Roslovic1–0
  2. P2 06:49EDMZ. HymanPP2–0
  3. P2 11:42EDMK. Kapanen3–0
  4. P2 14:31EDMJ. Roslovic4–0
  5. P2 15:08EDMK. Kapanen5–0
  6. P2 16:34EDMV. Podkolzin6–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
57 shots
6
Final
101 shots
VAN
44 shots
0
EDM attackVAN attack
EDM VAN Goal
57
shots · 6 in
44
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMVAN
2 / 10
3.31 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.52 xG
4 / 26
2.88 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.23 xG
0 / 30
0.58 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.75 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
T. Jarry
+3.5
EDM · 31/31
B+
N. Tolopilo
+0.8
VAN · 29/35
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers shut out the Canucks, 6-0

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 9–7no goals
    2ndshots 17–9
    1. 03:11EDMJ. Roslovic(C. Lazar, J. Walman)1–0
    2. 06:49EDMZ. Hymanpower play(E. Bouchard, C. McDavid)2–0
    3. 11:42EDMK. Kapanen(R. Nugent-Hopkins, T. Emberson)3–0
    4. 14:31EDMJ. Roslovic(I. Howard, M. Savoie)4–0
    5. 15:08EDMK. Kapanen(R. Nugent-Hopkins)5–0
    6. 16:34EDMV. Podkolzin6–0
    3rdshots 9–15no goals

      score reads EDM–VAN

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      6.76
      EDM chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.8
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.091
      EDM puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      55.9%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      6.76Expected goals3.50
      EDM 66% of the chance quality
      35Shots on goal31
      10High-danger chances6
      66All attempts (Corsi)52
      Adjusted for score: EDM 51% · VAN 49%
      Faceoffs · VAN won50%off50%neu68%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      EDM2 / 10 · 3.31 xG
      VAN0 / 6 · 1.52 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      EDM4 / 26 · 2.88 xG
      VAN0 / 11 · 1.23 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      EDM0 / 30 · 0.58 xG
      VAN0 / 35 · 0.75 xG

      VAN went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.52 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      EDM
      6 G · 6.76 xG · -0.8
      VAN
      0 G · 3.50 xG · -3.5
      012345678

      EDM finished -0.8 against expected, VAN -3.5.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      EDM
      WRIST0/26
      TIP IN1/6
      SLAP0/8
      SNAP3/8
      BACKHAND2/9
      DEFLECTED0/0
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/9
      VAN
      WRIST0/31
      TIP IN0/6
      SLAP0/3
      SNAP0/2
      BACKHAND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/1
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/8
      EDM
      VAN
      Off the rush
      6 G on 40
      4.06 xG
      0 G on 31
      2.48 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 8
      2.32 xG
      0 G on 4
      0.56 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 0-for-26, VAN 0-for-31. EDM scored 6 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
      T. Jarry
      EDM · 31/31 · 1.000
      +3.5
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/61.5+1.5
      Medium0/111.2+1.2
      Low0/350.8+0.8

      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

      N. Tolopilo
      VAN · 29/35 · .829
      +0.8
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger2/103.3+1.3
      Medium4/262.9-1.1
      Low0/300.6+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

      101 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      EDM
      57 shots
      6
      Final
      101 shots
      VAN
      44 shots
      0
      EDM attackVAN attack
      EDM VAN Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, VAN 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
      R. Nugent-Hopkins
      #93 · C · EDM
      0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:16 on ice · +2
      J. Roslovic
      #28 · C · EDM
      2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 16:55 on ice · +2
      K. Kapanen
      #42 · R · EDM
      2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 16:34 on ice · +2
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Jan 17
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:21 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 Edmonton to win 2.7 to 2.5 in Vancouver, with the Oilers at 54% win probability—essentially a pick'em. The tiny edge reflects a genuine stalemate: Edmonton controls the play, but Vancouver is due for positive regression that could swing the result.

      Edmonton owns the underlying possession battle. The Oilers generate 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 compared to 44.0% for the Canucks, and control Corsi at 50.0% to 46.0%, signaling clear territorial dominance. Both teams are running cold on the luck meter—Edmonton's PDO sits at 0.982 and Vancouver's at 0.974—which means both are primed for positive regression if the puck starts going in more.

      Recent form amplifies the uncertainty. The Oilers are the hotter team, going 4-4-2 over their last 10 games at a solid points pace. The Canucks are underwater, posting a -22 goal differential over the same span. That gap should matter, but it shrinks when you factor in Vancouver's improved odds of mean reversion.

      The goaltending matchup adds a wrinkle. K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back for Edmonton, and so is C. Ingram for Vancouver. Either team could deploy a backup or roll out a fatigued starter, making this harder to predict.

      On the player level, watch Zach Hyman for the Oilers. He's generating 1.23 expected goals per 60 minutes while sitting at 14 goals and 13 assists with a 13.0% shooting percentage. Connor McDavid remains the engine: 0.92 xG/60, 25 goals, 33 assists, and a 13.7% shooting rate.

      Vancouver counters with Filip Chytil, generating 1.03 xG/60 and shooting at 15.0% despite just 3 goals and 0 assists. The expected goals suggest opportunity; the goal total suggests variance. Drew O'Connor brings steadier production: 13 goals, 11 assists, 0.85 xG/60, 11.8% shooting.

      Defensively, Jake Walman is a weak link for Edmonton, as is Victor Mancini for Vancouver. If either team attacks these spots, it could create breakout opportunities.

      The edge is thin because Edmonton's possession dominance is real but not overwhelming, while Vancouver's negative variance is mathematically urgent but unguaranteed to correct. That's why the projection lands almost exactly in the middle.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      EDM 54%
      54%
      EDM
      Model favorite
      54%
      46%
      EDM50VAN

      EDM by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 2.7–2.5 VAN; 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
      EDM← edge
      edge →VAN
      52.0%44.0%
      50.0%46.0%
      2.642.22
      2.472.81
      2.131.60
      2.292.56
      0.9820.974

      EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.974) says EDM has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      EDM
      4-4-2
      -1 GD · 1d rest
      VAN
      1-7-2
      -22 GD · 1d rest
      0.982
      EDM PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.974
      VAN 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 44.0%.
      • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      • 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 44.0%.
      • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • C. Ingram is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Oilers are the hotter team by points pace (4-4-2 in their last 10).
      • The Canucks are underwater at -22 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
      EDM
      Expected in goal
      C. Ingram
      back-to-back.944 last start
      Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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.

      VAN
      Expected in goal
      K. Lankinen
      back-to-back.889 last start
      Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
      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
      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
      Keep going

      Where to next