Backcheck
Recap · WPG at SJS

Sharks edge the Jets in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 12, 5:26 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
1
Home
SJS
San Jose Sharks
2
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.86Expected goals3.98
58% share for the better side
28Shot attempts (SOG)33
6High-danger chances10
44Corsi (all attempts)66
Score-adjusted: 38% / 62%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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
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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. HellebuyckWPG
+2.0
A. NedeljkovicSJS
+1.9

WPG finished -1.9 against expected, SJS -2.0 — C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.0 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 19:58 TOI
W. Smith
#2 · C · SJS
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 18:36 TOI · +1
S. Dickinson
#6 · D · SJS
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:36 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) stopped 2.0 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 16 high-danger chances combined (SJS 10, WPG 6).
  • WPG couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • SJS created 7 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • SJS underperformed xG by 2.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • WPG underperformed xG by 1.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • A. Nedeljkovic (SJS) saved 1.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • A. Nedeljkovic was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 6 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · WPG at SJS · 4:00 PM ET

Jets at Sharks: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 5:03 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
SJS
Model favorite
48%
52%
WPG50SJS

SJS by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score WPG 2.52.6 SJS; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

WPG← edge
edge →SJS
48.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
49.0%Corsi%47.0%
2.34xGF / 602.33
2.55xGA / 602.56
1.90Goals for / gm1.99
2.10Goals against / gm2.32
0.998PDO — luck, not skill0.998

WPG holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 0.998) says WPG has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters