Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Mon, Jan 19 · the slate
Breakdown · SJS at FLA

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Panthers

FinalMon, Jan 19
SJSSan Jose Sharks4FLAFlorida Panthers1
The verdict · earned

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

SJS 4 · FLA 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:32 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

San Jose's 4-1 victory over Florida masked a deeper imbalance: the Panthers held 56% of shot attempts but generated only 44% of expected goals. That quality gap proved fatal.

Florida fired 36 shots on goal to San Jose's 28, yet San Jose's offense was far more efficient. The Sharks generated 0.087 expected goals per shot; the Panthers managed 0.054. When Florida's 3.64 expected goals yielded just one goal, they underperformed by 2.64—nearly the entire margin of defeat.

A. Nedeljkovic embodied that gap. The San Jose goaltender faced 36 shots, allowed one, and saved nearly 2.64 goals above expected against that shot quality. On high-danger chances, he was perfect: 6 for 6. His 0.972 save percentage stood between volume and victory.

San Jose's finishing edge extended beyond the crease. The Sharks created six rebound opportunities and converted three; Florida crashed the net effectively, generating three rebounds and converting zero. In a game decided by execution, that efficiency compounded.

Barclay Goodrow's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 17:21) had already handed San Jose separation before Florida's offensive drought became academic. S. Bobrovsky stopped 1.69 goals above expected in a losing effort, a reminder that the disparity wasn't goaltending but shot selection and finishing.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 19
SJS
4
FLA
1

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Panthers

Chances 4.7 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
4.69
FLA
3.64
56% of the chances44%

The board read SJS 4, FLA 1. The chances read SJS 4.7, FLA 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
−0.7
goals above expected
SJS4.69 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA3.64 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 2.6 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 00:50SJSW. Smith1–0
  2. P2 02:41SJSV. Desharnais2–0
  3. P2 06:12SJSM. Ferraro3–0
  4. P3 00:43FLAE. Luostarinen3–1
  5. P3 17:21SJSB. GoodrowEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
39 shots
4
Final
83 shots
FLA
44 shots
1
SJS attackFLA attack
SJS FLA Goal
39
shots · 4 in
44
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSFLA
1 / 8
2.53 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.41 xG
3 / 14
1.87 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.61 xG
0 / 32
0.29 xG
Low
1 / 47
0.62 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Nedeljkovic
+2.6
SJS · 35/36
A
S. Bobrovsky
+1.7
FLA · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Nedeljkovic stands tall as the Sharks edge the Panthers

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 8–10no goals
    2ndshots 11–9
    1. 00:50SJSW. Smith(T. Liljegren, A. Wennberg)1–0
    2. 02:41SJSV. Desharnais(I. Chernyshov, M. Misa)2–0
    3. 06:12SJSM. Ferraro(I. Chernyshov, M. Misa)3–0
    3rdshots 9–17
    1. 00:43FLAE. Luostarinen(A. Ekblad)3–1
    2. 17:21SJSB. Goodrowempty net4–1

    score reads SJS–FLA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.69
    SJS chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.7
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.059
    SJS puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.69Expected goals3.64
    SJS 56% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal36
    8High-danger chances6
    54All attempts (Corsi)67
    Adjusted for score: SJS 40% · FLA 60%
    Faceoffs · FLA won69%off50%neu40%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SJS1 / 8 · 2.53 xG
    FLA0 / 6 · 1.41 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SJS3 / 14 · 1.87 xG
    FLA0 / 14 · 1.61 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SJS0 / 32 · 0.29 xG
    FLA1 / 47 · 0.62 xG

    FLA went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.61 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SJS
    4 G · 4.69 xG · -0.7
    FLA
    1 G · 3.64 xG · -2.6
    012345

    SJS finished -0.7 against expected, FLA -2.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    SJS
    SNAP0/27
    WRIST4/8
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/15
    FLA
    SNAP0/31
    WRIST1/2
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/23
    SJS
    FLA
    Off the rush
    1 G on 23
    3.59 xG
    0 G on 26
    2.36 xG
    Off rebounds
    3 G on 6
    0.96 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.54 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: SJS went 0-for-27, FLA 0-for-31.

    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
    A. Nedeljkovic
    SJS · 35/36 · .972
    +2.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.4+1.4
    Medium0/141.6+1.6
    Low1/470.6-0.4

    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

    S. Bobrovsky
    FLA · 24/27 · .889
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/82.5+1.5
    Medium3/141.9-1.1
    Low0/320.3+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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SJS
    39 shots
    4
    Final
    83 shots
    FLA
    44 shots
    1
    SJS attackFLA attack
    SJS FLA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, FLA 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
    I. Chernyshov
    #92 · L · SJS
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 13:10 on ice · +2
    M. Misa
    #77 · C · SJS
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 11:17 on ice · +2
    A. Ekblad
    #5 · D · FLA
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:29 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Jan 19
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:31 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 2.4–2.6 goal game with the Panthers favored at 54% win probability—genuine flip-a-coin territory. San Jose and Florida are genuinely difficult to separate.

    The Sharks generate 48.0% xG and control Corsi at 47.0%. The Panthers counter at 49.0% xG and 52.0% Corsi, which promises Florida will command territorial time in San Jose's end. Neither possesses a decisive edge. San Jose's PDO sits at 0.998, near league average; Florida's 0.989 reflects marginal regression—the kind that evaporates over the course of an evening.

    Pavol Regenda leads San Jose's offense at 1.10 xG/60, backed by 5 goals, 1 assist, and a 16.1% shooting rate. He has 2 high-danger goals. Igor Chernyshov complements him with 6 goals, 8 assists, 0.91 xG/60, and 15.0% shooting, accounting for 1 high-danger marker. For Florida, Sam Bennett carries 18 goals and 19 assists at 0.97 xG/60, with 6 high-danger goals and 13.1% shooting. Brad Marchand runs alongside at 0.93 xG/60, 17 goals, 9 assists, 3 high-danger goals, and a 19.5% shooting rate—the highest on sheet.

    Neither team has converted high-danger or rebound chances at unusual rates, so puck possession becomes the real arbiter. Neutralizing Regenda and Bennett is obvious; what tilts the scales is whether San Jose's Chernyshov, their defensive weak link, can survive Florida's territorial pressure. Marchand, Florida's defensive vulnerability, becomes an angle for San Jose if they can generate transition and space. The constraint question: does San Jose overcome its possession deficit, or does Florida's slight luck regression offset their ice dominance?

    The model rates both risks as equal.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    FLA 54%
    54%
    FLA
    Model favorite
    46%
    54%
    SJS50FLA

    FLA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.4–2.6 FLA; 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 →FLA
    48.0%49.0%
    47.0%52.0%
    2.332.48
    2.562.56
    1.991.98
    2.322.21
    0.9980.989

    FLA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.989) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    SJS
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    FLA
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.998
    SJS PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.989
    FLA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    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
    FLA
    Sam Bennett18G 19A
    0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
    Brad Marchand17G 9A
    0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page