Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
← Sun, Jan 25 · the slate
Breakdown · NJD at SEA

Kraken hold off the Devils

FinalSun, Jan 25
NJDNew Jersey Devils2SEASeattle Kraken4
The verdict · earned

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

NJD 2 · SEA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:32 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

The Devils' 4–2 loss understates how badly they wasted chances: they generated 3.77 expected goals but scored only 2, underperforming by 1.77. That's not bad luck—that's precision failing when it mattered.

The Kraken controlled the underlying metrics. They held 53% of expected goals (4.20–3.77) while generating far sharper looks: 0.093 xG per shot versus the Devils' 0.054. That quality edge showed in the high-danger zone, where they converted 2 of 5 chances (40%).

J. Daccord was decisive. His 0.931 save percentage (+1.77 vs expected) transformed tight opportunities into saves. The Kraken scored 2 goals on 18 rush attempts. Meanwhile, J. Markstrom faced a barrage: 15 saves on 18 shots, +1.20 above expected. The Devils crashed the net effectively (5 rebound chances) and their power play was dominant (2 goals on 14 shots, 1.68 xG), yet it wasn't enough.

The Devils had lower-volume chances but higher quality than raw shot counts suggested. They didn't fail to generate looks—they failed to finish them. The Kraken took what was offered and capitalized.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 25
NJD
2
SEA
4

Kraken hold off the Devils

Chances 3.8 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kraken earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
3.77
SEA
4.20
47% of the chances53%

The board read NJD 2, SEA 4. The chances read NJD 3.8, SEA 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
−0.2
goals above expected
SEA4.20 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD3.77 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Devils left 1.8 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 08:11NJDD. HamiltonPP1–0
  2. P2 07:37SEAR. Evans1–1
  3. P3 07:04SEAM. Beniers1–2
  4. P3 07:22SEAB. Catton1–3
  5. P3 08:14NJDJ. HughesPP2–3
  6. P3 18:48SEAJ. EberleEN2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
47 shots
2
Final
75 shots
SEA
28 shots
4
NJD attackSEA attack
NJD SEA Goal
47
shots · 2 in
28
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDSEA
0 / 3
1.20 xG
High danger
2 / 5
2.77 xG
1 / 16
1.78 xG
Medium
1 / 10
1.07 xG
1 / 51
0.78 xG
Low
1 / 30
0.36 xG

The Devils went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Daccord
+1.8
SEA · 27/29
B+
J. Markstrom
+1.2
NJD · 15/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kraken hold off the Devils

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 9–9
  1. 08:11NJDD. Hamiltonpower play(J. Hughes, C. Brown)1–0
2ndshots 7–5
  1. 07:37SEAR. Evans1–1
3rdshots 13–5
  1. 07:04SEAM. Beniers(J. Eberle)1–2
  2. 07:22SEAB. Catton(C. Stephenson, E. Tolvanen)1–3
  3. 08:14NJDJ. Hughespower play(D. Hamilton, C. Brown)2–3
  4. 18:48SEAJ. Eberleempty net2–4

score reads NJD–SEA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.20
SEA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.060
SEA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
39.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.77Expected goals4.20
SEA 53% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal19
3High-danger chances5
70All attempts (Corsi)45
Adjusted for score: NJD 61% · SEA 39%
Faceoffs · SEA won52%off18%neu67%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD0 / 3 · 1.20 xG
SEA2 / 5 · 2.77 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD1 / 16 · 1.78 xG
SEA1 / 10 · 1.07 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD1 / 51 · 0.78 xG
SEA1 / 30 · 0.36 xG

NJD went 0-for-3 from high danger on 1.20 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
2 G · 3.77 xG · -1.8
SEA
4 G · 4.20 xG · -0.2
012345

NJD finished -1.8 against expected, SEA -0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
WRIST1/28
SNAP1/10
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/23
SEA
WRIST3/14
SNAP0/4
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND1/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/17
NJD
SEA
Off the rush
2 G on 30
2.18 xG
2 G on 18
2.57 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
1.19 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 1-for-28, SEA 3-for-14. NJD 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
J. Markstrom
NJD · 15/18 · .833
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/52.8+0.8
Medium1/101.1+0.1
Low1/300.4-0.6

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

J. Daccord
SEA · 27/29 · .931
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/31.2+1.2
Medium1/161.8+0.8
Low1/510.8-0.2

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
NJD
47 shots
2
Final
75 shots
SEA
28 shots
4
NJD attackSEA attack
NJD SEA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD left, SEA 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
J. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:16 on ice · -2
D. Hamilton
#7 · D · NJD
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 21:30 on ice · -1
J. Eberle
#7 · R · SEA
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:45 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Jan 25
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:30 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 projects a 2.5–2.4 expected-goal game with the Devils at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

New Jersey owns the underlying play. The Devils generate 50.0% of 5v5 expected goals against Seattle's 46.0%, and control territory decisively at 51.0% Corsi. But both teams are bleeding. The Kraken sit at -5 goal differential over their last 10 games; the Devils at -11.

What separates them isn't talent—it's calibration. New Jersey's PDO of 0.971 suggests they're running significantly colder than their play warrants. They're due for positive regression. Seattle's 1.011 PDO is the mirror image: they're outscoring their luck.

Both goalies face complications. P. Grubauer and J. Markstrom are both on back-to-backs, which could mean a backup start or a starter running on fumes.

Timo Meier is New Jersey's fulcrum: 13 goals, 1.08 expected goals per 60 minutes, and 3 high-danger chances. Jack Hughes provides the scoring depth at 18 goals with an 11.5% shooting percentage—unusually high, suggesting either hot hand or elevated volume. For Seattle, Shane Wright (0.77 xG/60, 8 goals, 4 HD chances) and Berkly Catton (0.68 xG/60, 6 goals, 5 HD chances) are the engines. Wright shoots at 10.4%; Catton at 8.8%. Both are efficient.

Defensively, New Jersey's Johnathan Kovacevic is the weak link. Seattle's Chandler Stephenson occupies the same role. Neither team is manufacturing second chances—both sit at 0% high-danger and rebound goal rates, suggesting structured play that doesn't leak.

This is a vintage coin-flip game: New Jersey has the edges on paper, but cold PDO is the only meaningful edge left. Seattle is safer because they're already running hot and can afford variance. The pick here isn't obvious. The model says 51% Devils, and that's about right—marginal, defensible, and subject to overnight goaltending decisions you won't know until warmups.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 51%
51%
NJD
Model favorite
51%
49%
NJD50SEA

NJD by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NJD 2.5–2.4 SEA; 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
NJD← edge
edge →SEA
50.0%46.0%
51.0%45.0%
2.452.13
2.502.51
1.661.87
2.231.95
0.9711.011

NJD holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 1.011) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NJD
5-5-0
-11 GD · 1d rest
SEA
3-5-2
-5 GD · 1d rest
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.011
SEA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • P. Grubauer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Markstrom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Kraken are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NJD
Expected in goal
J. Markstrom
back-to-back.840 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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.

SEA
Expected in goal
P. Grubauer
back-to-back.900 last start
Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page