Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Sun, Jan 25 · the slate
Breakdown · VGK at OTT

Senators run the Golden Knights off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSun, Jan 25
VGKVegas Golden Knights1OTTOttawa Senators7
The verdict · earned

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

VGK 1 · OTT 7
◆ 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 Senators defeated the Golden Knights 7-1, a scoreline that far exceeds the underlying control battle. At 5v5, Ottawa held 61% of expected goals (3.84–2.47)—a clear advantage, but not enough to explain a 6-goal margin.

The delta came from finishing and goaltending. Sogaard stopped 1.47 goals above expected while delivering a 0.950 save percentage. Hill coughed up 3.16 goals beyond expected on 32 shots (0.781 SV%), a catastrophic performance that accounts for much of the blowout.

Ottawa was lethal in low-danger areas—three goals came from spots where goaltenders are supposed to convert. On the rush, they scored 5 times on 36 attempts, clinical efficiency. Vegas created four rebound opportunities but buried zero, suggesting their net-crashing wasn't sharp enough. Overall, the Senators overperformed their xG by 3.16 goals, a sign of either elite finishing or bounces landing their way.

The turning point arrived early: Rasmus Andersson's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 15:05) set the tone.

Three Stars

  • B. Tkachuk (OTT) — 3A in 14:48
  • S. Halliday (OTT) — 2G, 1A in 07:39
  • T. Chabot (OTT) — 2A in 22:55
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 25
VGK
1
OTT
7

Senators run the Golden Knights off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
2.47
OTT
3.84
39% of the chances61%

The board read VGK 1, OTT 7. The chances read VGK 2.5, OTT 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+3.2
goals above expected
OTT3.84 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
VGK2.47 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators scored 3.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 09:25OTTF. Zetterlund0–1
  2. P2 05:51OTTD. Cozens0–2
  3. P2 06:07OTTJ. Spence0–3
  4. P2 17:50OTTS. Halliday0–4
  5. P3 01:22OTTD. Cozens0–5
  6. P3 02:05OTTS. Halliday0–6
  7. P3 03:56OTTN. Jensen0–7
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VGK
31 shots
1
Final
86 shots
OTT
55 shots
7
VGK attackOTT attack
VGK OTT Goal
31
shots · 1 in
55
shots · 7 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VGKOTT
1 / 5
1.01 xG
High danger
1 / 5
0.99 xG
0 / 10
1.03 xG
Medium
3 / 19
1.95 xG
0 / 34
0.42 xG
Low
3 / 49
0.91 xG

High-danger looks: VGK 1 of 5, OTT 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
M. Sogaard
+1.5
OTT · 19/20
F
A. Hill
−3.2
VGK · 25/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators run the Golden Knights off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 5–6
  1. 09:25OTTF. Zetterlund(S. Halliday)0–1
2ndshots 8–12
  1. 05:51OTTD. Cozens(R. Greig, B. Tkachuk)0–2
  2. 06:07OTTJ. Spence(T. Kleven, B. Tkachuk)0–3
  3. 17:50OTTS. Halliday(T. Chabot, T. Stützle)0–4
3rdshots 7–14
  1. 01:22OTTD. Cozens(B. Tkachuk)0–5
  2. 02:05OTTS. Halliday(T. Kleven)0–6
  3. 03:56OTTN. Jensen(T. Chabot, S. Pinto)0–7
  4. 15:05VGKR. Andersson(T. Hertl)1–7

score reads VGK–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.84
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.075
OTT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
59.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.47Expected goals3.84
OTT 61% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal32
5High-danger chances5
49All attempts (Corsi)73
Adjusted for score: VGK 46% · OTT 54%
Faceoffs · OTT won48%off33%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VGK1 / 5 · 1.01 xG
OTT1 / 5 · 0.99 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VGK0 / 10 · 1.03 xG
OTT3 / 19 · 1.95 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VGK0 / 34 · 0.42 xG
OTT3 / 49 · 0.91 xG

OTT went 3-for-49 from low danger on 0.91 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
1 G · 2.47 xG · -1.5
OTT
7 G · 3.84 xG · +3.2
012345678

VGK finished -1.5 against expected, OTT +3.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VGK
WRIST1/20
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/2
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/18
OTT
WRIST5/31
TIP IN1/7
SLAP0/9
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND1/4
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/18
VGK
OTT
Off the rush
0 G on 20
1.73 xG
5 G on 36
2.98 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.41 xG
0 G on 1
0.19 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 1-for-20, OTT 5-for-31. OTT scored 5 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
A. Hill
VGK · 25/32 · .781
-3.2
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.0-0.0
Medium3/191.9-1.1
Low3/490.9-2.1

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

M. Sogaard
OTT · 19/20 · .950
+1.5
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.0+0.0
Medium0/101.0+1.0
Low0/340.4+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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VGK
31 shots
1
Final
86 shots
OTT
55 shots
7
VGK attackOTT attack
VGK OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK 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
B. Tkachuk
#7 · L · OTT
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 14:48 on ice · +2
S. Halliday
#83 · C · OTT
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 07:39 on ice · +3
T. Chabot
#72 · D · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:55 on ice · +3
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 sees a coin flip. Vegas projects to score 2.3 goals, Ottawa 2.5, leaving the Senators with 53% win probability—essentially a pick'em.

Vegas has controlled 54.0% of expected goals and 52.0% of shot attempts at 5v5, numbers that should win games. Ottawa counters with 56.0% xG and 53.0% Corsi%, a marginal edge in the underlying process. The separation emerges in PDO: Vegas at 0.983, Ottawa at 0.993. Vegas is running cold and due for positive regression; Ottawa has been slightly fortunate but closer to sustainable outcomes.

Brady Tkachuk drives Ottawa's attack. At 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes, 11 goals and 20 assists (2 high-danger goals, 7.5% shooting), he's finishing well above his xG pace—a sign of unsustainable efficiency. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13G 15A, 1 high-danger goal, 9.5% shooting) follows in the same trap: generating at a reasonable rate but benefiting from hot shooting.

Vegas counters with Brandon Saad and Tomas Hertl. Saad carries 0.91 xG/60 with 3 goals and 6 assists (1 high-danger goal, 4.1% shooting), underperforming his underlying chances. Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 high-danger goal, 4.3% shooting) is less obviously starved but still playing ahead of his process. Both are candidates for positive regression if the variance swings.

Defensively, Vegas's Rasmus Andersson and Ottawa's Nick Jensen present vulnerabilities. Both teams show 0% high-danger and 0% rebound scoring, flagging limited second-chance creation or execution on loose pucks.

The verdict stands: Vegas has the process edge, Ottawa has the randomness discount. In a game where the Senators get 53% win probability, there is no edge at all.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 53%
53%
OTT
Model favorite
47%
53%
VGK50OTT

OTT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VGK 2.3–2.5 OTT; 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
VGK← edge
edge →OTT
54.0%56.0%
52.0%53.0%
2.522.66
2.112.12
2.122.18
2.101.99
0.9830.993

OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
VGK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
OTT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.983
VGK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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