Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater

Breakdown · SJS at EDM

Oilers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTThu, Jan 29

The verdict · earned

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

SJS 3 · EDM 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:19 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

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 breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Jan 29

SJS

EDM

Oilers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.9 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

SJS

1.92

EDM

3.36

36% of the chances64%

The board read SJS 3, EDM 4. The chances read SJS 1.9, EDM 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

EDM

+0.6

goals above expected

EDM3.36 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

SJS1.92 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

P1 00:26SJSC. Graf1–0
P1 01:35SJSA. Gaudette2–0
P1 11:40SJSM. Misa3–0
P3 01:34EDML. Draisaitl3–1
P3 16:55EDMC. McDavidPP3–2
P3 19:01EDME. BouchardPP3–3
OT 01:06EDMZ. Hyman3–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

SJS

28 shots

Final

74 shots

EDM

46 shots

SJS EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SJSEDM

1 / 3

0.65 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.60 xG

2 / 10

0.92 xG

Medium

2 / 19

2.19 xG

0 / 23

0.35 xG

Low

1 / 40

0.57 xG

High-danger looks: SJS 1 of 3, EDM 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

Y. Askarov

−0.6

SJS · 28/32

D-

C. Ingram

−1.1

EDM · 18/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Sharks 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 8–12

00:26SJSC. Graf(W. Smith, M. Celebrini)1–0
01:35SJSA. Gaudette(W. Eklund)2–0
11:40SJSM. Misa(T. Liljegren, S. Dickinson)3–0

2ndshots 9–8no goals

3rdshots 4–10

01:34EDML. Draisaitl(E. Bouchard, K. Kapanen)3–1
16:55EDMC. McDavidpower play(L. Draisaitl, R. Nugent-Hopkins)3–2
19:01EDME. Bouchardpower play(L. Draisaitl, M. Ekholm)3–3

OTshots 0–2

01:06EDMZ. Hyman(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)3–4

score reads SJS–EDM

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.36

EDM chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

0.981

EDM puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

63.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.92Expected goals3.36

EDM 64% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal32

3High-danger chances3

36All attempts (Corsi)62

Adjusted for score: SJS 30% · EDM 70%

Faceoffs · EDM won68%off58%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SJS1 / 3 · 0.65 xG

EDM1 / 3 · 0.60 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SJS2 / 10 · 0.92 xG

EDM2 / 19 · 2.19 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SJS0 / 23 · 0.35 xG

EDM1 / 40 · 0.57 xG

SJS went 2-for-10 from medium danger on 0.92 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SJS

3 G · 1.92 xG · +1.1

EDM

4 G · 3.36 xG · +0.6

012345

SJS finished +1.1 against expected, EDM +0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SJS

WRIST1/13

SLAP0/6

SNAP1/5

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND1/1

OTHER0/8

EDM

WRIST2/27

SLAP1/8

SNAP1/4

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/3

OTHER0/16

SJS

EDM

Off the rush

3 G on 19

1.31 xG

2 G on 32

2.57 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.23 xG

1 G on 2

0.33 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 1-for-13, EDM 2-for-27. SJS scored 3 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

Y. Askarov

SJS · 28/32 · .875

-0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.6-0.4

Medium2/192.2+0.2

Low1/400.6-0.4

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

C. Ingram

EDM · 18/21 · .857

-1.1

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.7-0.3

Medium2/100.9-1.1

Low0/230.3+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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SJS

28 shots

Final

74 shots

EDM

46 shots

SJS EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, EDM 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

L. Draisaitl

#29 · C · EDM

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 25:20 on ice · +3

E. Bouchard

#2 · D · EDM

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 25:06 on ice · +2

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 26:10 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:15 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 SJS 2.4–2.7 EDM game with the Oilers favored at 56% win probability. Edmonton earns that edge on substance: at 52.0% 5v5 expected goals and 50.0% Corsi%, the Oilers dominate possession and shot quality. San Jose operates in their shadow at 48.0% xG% and 47.0% Corsi%.

The caveat: Edmonton's PDO sits at 0.982—they're running cold. The Sharks, at 0.998, are closer to neutral. Positive regression works against the model's lean; expect variance to tighten the spread.

Y. Askarov faces a back-to-back. Watch for either a backup start or a starter playing on fumes.

The Sharks lean on Pavol Regenda (5G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals, 16.1% shooting) as their primary offensive engine. He's Edmonton's key neutralization target. Igor Chernyshov (6G, 0.91 xG/60, 1 HD goal, 15.0% shooting) supplies secondary scoring but represents a defensive liability for San Jose.

Edmonton counters with Zach Hyman (14G, 1.23 xG/60, 1 HD goal, 13.0% shooting) handling high-volume play and Connor McDavid (25G, 0.92 xG/60, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting) as the finisher. McDavid cannot be allowed space. Jake Walman is the defensive weak link San Jose will hunt.

Both teams sit at 0% for high-danger and rebound-goal rates. Whoever converts in tight first controls the outcome.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 56%

56%

EDM

Model favorite

44%

56%

SJS50EDM

EDM by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.4–2.7 EDM; 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 →EDM

48.0%52.0%

47.0%50.0%

2.332.64

2.562.47

1.992.13

2.322.29

0.9980.982

EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.982) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SJS

7-3-0

+4 GD · 1d rest

EDM

5-3-2

+10 GD · 2d rest

0.998

SJS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.982

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

SJS

Expected in goal

Y. Askarov

back-to-back.920 last start

Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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.

EDM

Expected in goal

T. Jarry

2 days rest.902 last start

Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

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

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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page