Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
Breakdown · WSH at VAN

Canucks hold off the Capitals

The verdict · coin flip

The Canucks won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

WSH 3 · VAN 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:09 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

Vancouver's 4-3 win emerged despite a near-even underlying contest. Expected goals split 3.75-3.96, a negligible edge to Washington.

The difference lay in design. The Capitals led in shot attempts (32-25), but the Canucks generated more high-danger chances (6-4). Washington chose volume; Vancouver chose quality. Neither approach yielded an obvious edge on the underlying numbers.

Variance settled it. The Capitals underperformed their xG by 0.96 goals. K. Lankinen (29/32, 0.906 SV%) outperformed by the same margin, while L. Thompson (21/25, 0.840 SV%) couldn't match. In a contest this narrow, goaltending was decisive.

Vancouver's efficiency at pace reinforced the margin. The Canucks scored four goals on 23 rush attempts—a rate that compounds when the underlying game is tight. Washington's power play supplied three goals on 16 shots (1.57 xG), but special-teams excellence couldn't overcome Vancouver's goaltending.

Dylan Strome's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 16:37) proved decisive in a contest that could have gone either way. Lankinen's performance ensured it went one.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 21
WSH
3
VAN
4

Canucks hold off the Capitals

Chances 4.0 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Canucks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
WSH
3.96
VAN
3.75
51% of the chances49%

The board read WSH 3, VAN 4. The chances read WSH 4.0, VAN 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+0.3
goals above expected
VAN3.75 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
WSH3.96 expected · 3 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 08:25WSHD. StromePP1–0
  2. P1 09:43WSHJ. SourdifPP2–0
  3. P1 13:32VANB. Boeser2–1
  4. P1 18:22VANE. Kane2–2
  5. P2 08:58VAND. O'Connor2–3
  6. P2 11:43VANF. Hronek2–4
  7. P3 16:37WSHD. StromePP3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WSH
52 shots
3
Final
91 shots
VAN
39 shots
4
WSH attackVAN attack
WSH VAN Goal
52
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WSHVAN
2 / 4
1.05 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.82 xG
1 / 18
2.09 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.39 xG
0 / 44
0.81 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.54 xG

High-danger looks: WSH 2 of 4, VAN 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
K. Lankinen
+1.0
VAN · 29/32
C
L. Thompson
−0.3
WSH · 21/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks hold off the Capitals

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 11–10
  1. 08:25WSHD. Stromepower play(T. Wilson, J. Carlson)1–0
  2. 09:43WSHJ. Sourdifpower play(D. Strome, A. Ovechkin)2–0
  3. 13:32VANB. Boeser(D. Kampf)2–1
  4. 18:22VANE. Kane(J. DeBrusk)2–2
2ndshots 12–11
  1. 08:58VAND. O'Connor(D. Kampf, B. Boeser)2–3
  2. 11:43VANF. Hronek(J. DeBrusk, T. Willander)2–4
3rdshots 9–4
  1. 16:37WSHD. Stromepower play(J. Sourdif, J. Carlson)3–4

score reads WSH–VAN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.75
VAN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.029
VAN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.96Expected goals3.75
WSH 51% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal25
4High-danger chances6
66All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: WSH 57% · VAN 43%
Faceoffs · VAN won39%off29%neu46%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WSH2 / 4 · 1.05 xG
VAN1 / 6 · 1.82 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WSH1 / 18 · 2.09 xG
VAN2 / 13 · 1.39 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WSH0 / 44 · 0.81 xG
VAN1 / 35 · 0.54 xG

WSH went 1-for-18 from medium danger on 2.09 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WSH
3 G · 3.96 xG · -1.0
VAN
4 G · 3.75 xG · +0.3
012345

WSH finished -1.0 against expected, VAN +0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WSH
WRIST3/29
BACKHAND0/7
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/6
SNAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/1
OTHER0/14
VAN
WRIST2/24
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/6
TIP IN1/3
SNAP1/2
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/15
WSH
VAN
Off the rush
1 G on 28
2.16 xG
4 G on 23
2.14 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 7
1.12 xG
0 G on 5
0.55 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WSH went 3-for-29, VAN 2-for-24. VAN scored 4 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
L. Thompson
WSH · 21/25 · .840
-0.3
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.8+0.8
Medium2/131.4-0.6
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

K. Lankinen
VAN · 29/32 · .906
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.1-0.9
Medium1/182.1+1.1
Low0/440.8+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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WSH
52 shots
3
Final
91 shots
VAN
39 shots
4
WSH attackVAN attack
WSH VAN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WSH 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
D. Strome
#17 · C · WSH
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:17 on ice · +1
J. Carlson
#74 · D · WSH
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 26:45 on ice
J. DeBrusk
#74 · L · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 18:20 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Jan 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:02 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 sees this as a pick'em. The projection: Capitals 2.7, Canucks 2.5, with Washington holding a 53% win probability—a margin so thin you could flip a coin.

The Capitals own the form advantage. Their record over the last ten is 3-6-1, the higher points pace; the Canucks are underwater at -27 goal differential, Washington at -5. One team has momentum, one doesn't.

Underlying play belongs to the Capitals. Their 50.0% expected goals share at 5-on-5 dominates Vancouver's 44.0%. Corsi tells the same story: 49.0% to 46.0%, another edge in possession that compounds into structure.

But Vancouver has a regression story in its favor. The Canucks' PDO sits at 0.974—running cold by the variance metrics—and teams that run cold eventually warm. The Capitals are 1.018, running hot, and heat tends to normalize downward. If you believe in PDO mean reversion, Vancouver gets the luck bounce here.

Goaltending introduces a wrinkle: K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back, so expect either a tired starter or a backup start. Depth matters when the primary asset is compromised.

Alex Ovechkin is the Capitals' fulcrum. He's generated 0.97 expected goals per 60, converted 19 times with 17 assists, and owns 2 high-danger opportunities at a 13.8% shooting clip—precise finishing on close looks. Anthony Beauvillier supports at 0.89 xG/60 with 14 goals, 9 assists, and a 10.4% shot rate. He's another high-volume finisher.

Vancouver's danger comes from Filip Chytil, who carries 1.03 xG/60—the highest rate among these four—though only 3 goals and 0 assists, leaving upside in conversion. Drew O'Connor offers steadier production: 13 goals, 11 assists, 3 high-danger chances, 11.8% shooting. The Canucks' threat is distributed; Washington's is concentrated.

The edge belongs to Washington in underlying play. But the Capitals run hot, the Canucks run cold, and regression lives in Vancouver's direction. This genuinely could go either way.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WSH 53%
53%
WSH
Model favorite
53%
47%
WSH50VAN

WSH by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WSH 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
WSH← edge
edge →VAN
50.0%44.0%
49.0%46.0%
2.622.22
2.622.81
2.181.60
1.792.56
1.0180.974

WSH holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.974) says WSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
WSH
3-6-1
-5 GD · 2d rest
VAN
0-8-2
-27 GD · 1d rest
1.018
WSH 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 Capitals own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Capitals own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Capitals are the hotter team by points pace (3-6-1 in their last 10).
  • The Canucks are underwater at -27 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
WSH
Expected in goal
C. Lindgren
2 days rest.886 last start
Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
back-to-back.879 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
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% 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