Oilers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers
The Oilers earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The underlying story
Edmonton's 4-3 overtime win flattered San Jose. The Oilers controlled 64% of expected goals at 5v5 (3.36–1.92), a dominance that the one-goal margin obscures—they won the underlying battle decisively.
The Oilers held 60% of shot attempts (32–21 on goal). High-danger chances split evenly at 3–3, but in volume play, Edmonton ran away.
Both goalies stumbled. Y. Askarov stopped 28 of 32 (0.875 SV%), posting 0.64 goals worse than expected. C. Ingram saved 18 of 21 (0.857 SV%), underperforming by 1.08 goals—a particularly costly miss for Edmonton. Yet San Jose still managed to overperform its xG by 1.08 goals, nearly erasing Edmonton's structural edge.
The outlier: San Jose was lethal on the rush, converting 3 goals on 19 chances. Edmonton scored twice on 32 rush attempts. On paper, the Sharks had to be surgical because they had few scoring opportunities; they were, and it nearly worked. Edmonton's power play (2 goals on 12 shots, 0.86 xG) sealed it instead.
The danger ladder
SJS went 2-for-10 from medium danger on 0.92 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.
Finishing vs expected
SJS finished +1.1 against expected, EDM +0.6 — C. Ingram (EDM) allowed 1.1 more goals than expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 1-for-13, EDM 2-for-27. SJS scored 3 of theirs off the rush.
- C. Ingram (EDM) gave up 1.1 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
- EDM was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 32 rush chances.
- SJS was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 19 rush chances.
- EDM power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 12 PP shots (0.86 xG).