Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater

Breakdown · WPG at SJS

Sharks edge the Jets in overtime

Final / OTSun, Mar 1

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 1 · SJS 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:26 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

San Jose controlled this game—58% of expected goals (3.98–2.86)—but only by a goal, because C. Hellebuyck was extraordinary. Winnipeg's goaltender saved 1.98 goals above expected, keeping the Sharks from fully capitalizing on their edge. Michael Misa's overtime goal at 1:40 decided it.

The underlying play backed the result. The Sharks won shot attempts (54%, 33–28) and high-danger chances (10–6). The Jets managed just 0 for 6 on prime scoring opportunities—a wasteful performance that won't repeat often. A. Nedeljkovic (SJS) was nearly as good as Hellebuyck, saving 1.86 goals above expected to hold the line when the Sharks were squandering their advantages.

Both teams underperformed their xG by roughly two goals each, a sign of exceptional goaltending on both sides.

Three Stars

#71 M. Celebrini (SJS) — 1A in 19:58
#2 W. Smith (SJS) — 1G in 18:36
#6 S. Dickinson (SJS) — 1A in 18:36

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Mar 1

WPG

SJS

Sharks edge the Jets in overtime

Chances 2.9 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

2.86

SJS

3.98

42% of the chances58%

The board read WPG 1, SJS 2. The chances read WPG 2.9, SJS 4.0.

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

Luck check

SJS

−2.0

goals above expected

SJS3.98 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG2.86 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Jets left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 02:44WPGM. Barron1–0
P3 01:47SJSW. Smith1–1
OT 01:40SJSM. Misa1–2

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

Where the shots came from

WPG

33 shots

Final

82 shots

SJS

49 shots

WPG SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGSJS

0 / 6

1.59 xG

High danger

2 / 10

2.19 xG

1 / 9

0.87 xG

Medium

0 / 11

1.03 xG

0 / 29

0.41 xG

Low

0 / 45

0.76 xG

The Jets went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

C. Hellebuyck

+2.0

WPG · 31/33

A. Nedeljkovic

+1.9

SJS · 27/28

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sharks edge the Jets in overtime

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 8–14

02:44WPGM. Barron(T. Pearson, C. Koepke)1–0

2ndshots 9–4no goals

3rdshots 10–14

01:47SJSW. Smith(C. Graf, M. Celebrini)1–1

OTshots 1–1

01:40SJSM. Misa(W. Eklund, S. Dickinson)1–2

score reads WPG–SJS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.98

SJS chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.0

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.008

SJS puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

60.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.86Expected goals3.98

SJS 58% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal33

6High-danger chances10

44All attempts (Corsi)66

Adjusted for score: WPG 38% · SJS 62%

Faceoffs · SJS won47%off55%neu47%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG0 / 6 · 1.59 xG

SJS2 / 10 · 2.19 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG1 / 9 · 0.87 xG

SJS0 / 11 · 1.03 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG0 / 29 · 0.41 xG

SJS0 / 45 · 0.76 xG

WPG went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.59 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

1 G · 2.86 xG · -1.9

SJS

2 G · 3.98 xG · -2.0

012345

WPG finished -1.9 against expected, SJS -2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

WRIST1/27

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/0

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/11

SJS

WRIST1/29

SLAP0/10

TIP IN0/6

SNAP0/0

BACKHAND0/3

BAT1/1

OTHER0/17

WPG

SJS

Off the rush

1 G on 21

2.28 xG

1 G on 30

2.65 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.39 xG

1 G on 7

0.95 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-27, SJS 1-for-29.

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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 31/33 · .939

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/102.2+0.2

Medium0/111.0+1.0

Low0/450.8+0.8

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. Nedeljkovic

SJS · 27/28 · .964

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.6+1.6

Medium1/90.9-0.1

Low0/290.4+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

33 shots

Final

82 shots

SJS

49 shots

WPG SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

M. Celebrini

#71 · C · SJS

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 19:58 on ice

W. Smith

#2 · C · SJS

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 18:36 on ice · +1

S. Dickinson

#6 · D · SJS

0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:36 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Mar 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:03 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 models can't decide. Projected 2.5–2.6 SJS result with the Sharks at 52% win probability means San Jose has the slimmest edge in a game that looks like a pick'em on tape.

Both teams generate identical shot quality this season: 48.0% xG% for each. Winnipeg edges the possession battle at 49.0% Corsi%, but San Jose's 47.0% stays within noise. Even their shooting percentages converge—both at 0.998 PDO—so if anyone leaves this one feeling robbed, variance owns the blame.

The Jets arrive underwater. They're -9 in goal differential over their last 10, which is the kind of stretch that suggests either bad luck or bad underlying play. The goaltending situation compounds the mess: Y. Askarov faces a back-to-back, and so does C. Hellebuyck. Expect a backup in net, or starters playing through fatigue.

Kyle Connor carries Winnipeg's scoring punch. He's got 25G 30A on a 0.83 xG/60 with 13.0% shooting—the gap between his expected and actual production marks him as either due for regression or simply elite at finishing. Nino Niederreiter sits close behind at 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, with 3 hard-chance goals. Both deserve close marking from San Jose's defense.

San Jose leans harder on individual production. Pavol Regenda's 1.10 xG/60 leads the game in shot quality, but he's marked inactive, removing the most dangerous weapon from this matchup. Igor Chernyshov fills the gap at 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, though 15.0% shooting rates as unsustainable.

Neither team has found the net on rebounds or hard chances at any meaningful rate—both teams sit at 0%—which means this game lives or dies on primary chances. That favors whichever defense tightens up first. Winnipeg's weak link is Colin Miller; San Jose's, paradoxically, is Chernyshov, who paces their attack but leaves space behind.

Sharks at 52% feels right.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

SJS 52%

52%

SJS

Model favorite

48%

52%

WPG50SJS

SJS by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score WPG 2.5–2.6 SJS; 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

WPG← edge

edge →SJS

48.0%48.0%

49.0%47.0%

2.342.33

2.552.56

1.901.99

2.102.32

0.9980.998

WPG holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

WPG

4-3-3

-9 GD · 1d rest

SJS

4-5-1

-4 GD · 1d rest

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

SJS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Jets are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

back-to-back.875 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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.

SJS

Expected in goal

Y. Askarov

back-to-back.833 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.

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

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page