Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Wed, Feb 4 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at VGK

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

FinalWed, Feb 4
VANVancouver Canucks2VGKVegas Golden Knights5
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 2 · VGK 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:11 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

Vegas' 5–2 scoreline exceeded what their underlying numbers predicted. The Golden Knights controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals (3.32–1.76) and 57% of shot attempts (31–23), but overperformed their xG by 1.68 — elite finishing that amplified their already significant advantage.

The gap stems from quality. Vegas generated 0.063 expected goals per shot; Vancouver managed 0.040. The Golden Knights were clinical in the high-danger zone, converting 2 of 4 chances (50%), and lethal on the rush — four goals on 29 chances.

Goaltending widened the margin. K. Lankinen faced 31 shots and stopped 26, a 0.839 save percentage that fell 1.68 goals short of expectation. A. Schmid was efficient: 21 saves on 23 shots, a 0.913 SV%, tracking above league average.

The turning point arrived early. Alexander Holtz's snap shot from the slot (P3, 03:31) set the tone.

Vegas' rush dominance and clinical finishing amplified their underlying advantage. Vancouver's respectable shot volume couldn't overcome the quality gap.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 4
VAN
2
VGK
5

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

Chances 1.8 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
1.76
VGK
3.32
35% of the chances65%

The board read VAN 2, VGK 5. The chances read VAN 1.8, VGK 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
+1.7
goals above expected
VGK3.32 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN1.76 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Golden Knights scored 1.7 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. P2 05:09VGKJ. Eichel0–1
  2. P2 06:34VGKC. Reinhardt0–2
  3. P2 07:11VANE. Pettersson1–2
  4. P2 07:39VGKI. Barbashev1–3
  5. P2 19:51VANP. Joseph2–3
  6. P3 02:31VGKP. Dorofeyev2–4
  7. P3 03:31VGKA. Holtz2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
33 shots
2
Final
77 shots
VGK
44 shots
5
VAN attackVGK attack
VAN VGK Goal
33
shots · 2 in
44
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANVGK
0 / 3
0.59 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.87 xG
1 / 6
0.54 xG
Medium
3 / 17
1.83 xG
1 / 35
0.63 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.61 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
A. Schmid
−0.2
VGK · 21/23
F
K. Lankinen
−1.7
VAN · 26/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights run the Canucks 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 8–7no goals
    2ndshots 11–9
    1. 05:09VGKJ. Eichel(R. Andersson, M. Stone)0–1
    2. 06:34VGKC. Reinhardt(B. Bowman, S. Theodore)0–2
    3. 07:11VANE. Pettersson(L. Ohgren, T. Blueger)1–2
    4. 07:39VGKI. Barbashev(M. Stone, J. Eichel)1–3
    5. 19:51VANP. Joseph(C. Garland, T. Blueger)2–3
    3rdshots 4–15
    1. 02:31VGKP. Dorofeyev(M. Marner)2–4
    2. 03:31VGKA. Holtz(K. Kolesar, J. Lauzon)2–5

    score reads VAN–VGK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.32
    VGK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.7
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.049
    VGK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    54.6%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.76Expected goals3.32
    VGK 65% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal31
    3High-danger chances4
    44All attempts (Corsi)53
    Adjusted for score: VAN 50% · VGK 50%
    Faceoffs · VGK won46%off44%neu58%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VAN0 / 3 · 0.59 xG
    VGK2 / 4 · 0.87 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VAN1 / 6 · 0.54 xG
    VGK3 / 17 · 1.83 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VAN1 / 35 · 0.63 xG
    VGK0 / 32 · 0.61 xG

    VGK went 3-for-17 from medium danger on 1.83 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VAN
    2 G · 1.76 xG · +0.2
    VGK
    5 G · 3.32 xG · +1.7
    0123456

    VAN finished +0.2 against expected, VGK +1.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VAN
    WRIST2/21
    SNAP0/4
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/11
    VGK
    WRIST4/28
    SNAP1/5
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    OTHER0/9
    VAN
    VGK
    Off the rush
    1 G on 19
    1.17 xG
    4 G on 29
    2.55 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.04 xG
    1 G on 1
    0.19 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 2-for-21, VGK 4-for-28. VGK 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
    K. Lankinen
    VAN · 26/31 · .839
    -1.7
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/40.9-1.1
    Medium3/171.8-1.2
    Low0/320.6+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

    A. Schmid
    VGK · 21/23 · .913
    -0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.6+0.6
    Medium1/60.5-0.5
    Low1/350.6-0.4

    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

    77 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    VAN
    33 shots
    2
    Final
    77 shots
    VGK
    44 shots
    5
    VAN attackVGK attack
    VAN VGK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, VGK 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. Eichel
    #9 · C · VGK
    1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:07 on ice · +2
    M. Stone
    #61 · R · VGK
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:16 on ice · +2
    T. Blueger
    #53 · C · VAN
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:07 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Feb 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:10 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 Vegas to win by 2.2 to 2.8 goals with the Golden Knights at 61% win probability. The edge is structural: Vegas dominates in scoring chances at 54.0% expected goals, while Vancouver manages just 44.0%. The Knights drive Corsi at 52.0%—they should dominate territorial play.

    The wrinkle: both teams are running ice-cold on shooting. Vegas sits at 0.983 PDO, Vancouver 0.974. PDO regression cuts both ways. Vegas's margin could expand if their goaltending improves and they bury their chances; Vancouver's could shrink further if their drought continues.

    Vancouver enters desperate. Over their last 10 games, the Canucks are -17 in goal differential—a chasm that undermines their numbers. That gap between solid metrics and poor results is the kind of thing that corrects sharply, for better or worse.

    On the ice, Filip Chytil anchors Vancouver's attack at 1.03 xG per 60 but sits at just 3 goals on 15.0% shooting—room for positive regression. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11.8% shooting) has already converted at a brisk pace, suggesting his run is more sustainable.

    For Vegas, Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60, 3 goals, 4.1% shooting) and Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5 goals, 4.3% shooting) generate steady chances without unsustainable conversion rates. If Vegas's edge in play persists, both should find the net tonight.

    The model likes Vegas because of the underlying advantage. But Vancouver's form over their last 10 is bad enough that even a PDO correction might not save them if they can't win possession battles.

    Players to Watch:

    • Filip Chytil (VAN) — 1.03 xG/60, 3G, 0A, 1 HD goal, 15.0% shooting
    • Drew O'Connor (VAN) — 0.85 xG/60, 13G, 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting
    • Brandon Saad (VGK) — 0.91 xG/60, 3G, 6A, 1 HD goal, 4.1% shooting
    • Tomas Hertl (VGK) — 0.88 xG/60, 5G, 17A, 1 HD goal, 4.3% shooting
    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 61%
    61%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    39%
    61%
    VAN50VGK

    VGK by 22 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.2–2.8 VGK; 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
    VAN← edge
    edge →VGK
    44.0%54.0%
    46.0%52.0%
    2.222.52
    2.812.11
    1.602.12
    2.562.10
    0.9740.983

    VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 0.983) says VGK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    VAN
    2-7-1
    -17 GD · 1d rest
    VGK
    3-5-2
    -3 GD · 2d rest
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Canucks are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    VAN
    Expected in goal
    —
    no game on file

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    VGK
    Expected in goal
    A. Hill
    2 days rest.864 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page