Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Tue, Mar 3 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at EDM

Oilers run the Senators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTTue, Mar 3
OTTOttawa Senators4EDMEdmonton Oilers5
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 4 · EDM 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:21 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 5–4 overtime victory glossed over a rout. The Oilers generated 11 high-danger chances to Ottawa's 1—a gap that made the scoreline a lie.

That margin wasn't an outlier. Edmonton controlled 71% of expected goals (5.42–2.18), converting their chances with ruthless efficiency. Their shot quality was elite: 0.080 xG per attempt versus Ottawa's 0.046. The power play was surgical—3 goals on 11 shots (1.47 xG). On the rush, they buried 3 of 33 chances.

L. Ullmark (Ottawa) posted a 0.865 save percentage on 32 saves, an impressive performance against relentless offensive pressure. C. Ingram (Edmonton) allowed 17 goals on 21 shots (0.810 SV%), underperforming expected by 1.82 goals. Ottawa, meanwhile, overperformed their xG by 1.8 goals—elite finishing or fortune, depending on your read of variance.

E. Bouchard's slap shot from the high slot at 01:50 of overtime decided the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 3
OTT
4
EDM
5

Oilers run the Senators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.2 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
2.18
EDM
5.42
29% of the chances71%

The board read OTT 4, EDM 5. The chances read OTT 2.2, EDM 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−0.4
goals above expected
EDM5.42 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT2.18 expected · 4 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
  1. P1 03:34OTTD. Cozens1–0
  2. P1 05:03EDML. Draisaitl1–1
  3. P1 06:34OTTD. BathersonPP2–1
  4. P1 16:48EDML. Draisaitl2–2
  5. P2 04:30OTTD. Batherson3–2
  6. P2 05:11OTTM. Amadio4–2
  7. P3 01:52EDMR. Nugent-HopkinsPP4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
34 shots
4
Final
92 shots
EDM
58 shots
5
OTT attackEDM attack
OTT EDM Goal
34
shots · 4 in
58
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTEDM
1 / 1
0.32 xG
High danger
1 / 11
2.57 xG
3 / 13
1.30 xG
Medium
3 / 17
2.06 xG
0 / 34
0.57 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.79 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 1 of 1, EDM 1 of 11.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
L. Ullmark
+0.4
OTT · 32/37
F
C. Ingram
−1.8
EDM · 17/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Senators 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 8–10
  1. 03:34OTTD. Cozens(N. Cousins, T. Chabot)1–0
  2. 05:03EDML. Draisaitl(M. Ekholm, M. Savoie)1–1
  3. 06:34OTTD. Bathersonpower play(B. Tkachuk, T. Stützle)2–1
  4. 16:48EDML. Draisaitl2–2
2ndshots 10–15
  1. 04:30OTTD. Batherson(T. Stützle)3–2
  2. 05:11OTTM. Amadio(N. Jensen)4–2
3rdshots 3–9
  1. 01:52EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(L. Draisaitl, C. McDavid)4–3
  2. 18:35EDMZ. Hymanpower play(L. Draisaitl, E. Bouchard)4–4
OTshots 0–3
  1. 01:50EDME. Bouchardpower play(C. McDavid, L. Draisaitl)4–5

score reads OTT–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.42
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.4
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.990
EDM puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
58.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.18Expected goals5.42
EDM 71% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal37
1High-danger chances11
48All attempts (Corsi)68
Adjusted for score: OTT 38% · EDM 62%
Faceoffs · EDM won71%off80%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT1 / 1 · 0.32 xG
EDM1 / 11 · 2.57 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT3 / 13 · 1.30 xG
EDM3 / 17 · 2.06 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 34 · 0.57 xG
EDM1 / 40 · 0.79 xG

OTT went 3-for-13 from medium danger on 1.30 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
4 G · 2.18 xG · +1.8
EDM
5 G · 5.42 xG · -0.4
0123456

OTT finished +1.8 against expected, EDM -0.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST2/16
SNAP2/9
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/14
EDM
WRIST3/30
SNAP0/11
BACKHAND0/6
SLAP1/2
TIP IN0/6
DEFLECTED1/1
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/10
OTT
EDM
Off the rush
3 G on 24
1.62 xG
3 G on 33
3.23 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.12 xG
0 G on 5
0.84 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 2-for-16, EDM 3-for-30. OTT 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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 32/37 · .865
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/112.6+1.6
Medium3/172.1-0.9
Low1/400.8-0.2

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 · 17/21 · .810
-1.8
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/10.3-0.7
Medium3/131.3-1.7
Low0/340.6+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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
34 shots
4
Final
92 shots
EDM
58 shots
5
OTT attackEDM attack
OTT EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
2 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 23:08 on ice · +2
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 28:37 on ice · -1
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 27:37 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:19 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 2.6–2.5 edge to Ottawa, which translates to 51% win probability: a pick'em. Ottawa has earned this status through genuine advantages in the underlying play, though Edmonton's poor luck creates a counterweight worth monitoring.

Ottawa's form backs the projection. The Senators have gone 6–3–1 in their last 10 games, outpacing Edmonton. More significant is their territorial control: they own 56.0% of expected goals at 5-on-5 and drive 53.0% Corsi, meaning they should finish this game in Edmonton's end.

Edmonton isn't playing poorly — they're playing worse than their record suggests. At 0.982 PDO, they're running significantly cold on luck. Regression should flip Edmonton's results toward their underlying performance, which creates a built-in correction factor for a team that's been underperforming.

The gap narrows when you line up their best talent. Brady Tkachuk leads Ottawa at 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes and has scored 11 times on a 7.5% shooting rate, suggesting more upside. Zach Hyman matches that at 1.23 xG/60 and has converted 14 times at 13.0%, with little room left to improve. Connor McDavid remains the wildcard: 25 goals and 33 assists on just 0.92 xG/60 is the definition of outscoring your chances.

Dylan Cozens (13 goals at 9.5% shooting) adds another scoring weapon Ottawa can deploy. But Ottawa can't activate their best line in every situation, and their own cold shooting — Tkachuk at 7.5% — means they're not running away with puck luck either.

Key Players

  • Brady Tkachuk (OTT) — 1.19 xG/60, 11 goals
  • Zach Hyman (EDM) — 1.23 xG/60, 14 goals
  • Connor McDavid (EDM) — 25 goals, 0.92 xG/60
What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 51%
51%
OTT
Model favorite
51%
49%
OTT50EDM

OTT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.5 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
OTT← edge
edge →EDM
56.0%52.0%
53.0%50.0%
2.662.64
2.122.47
2.182.13
1.992.29
0.9930.982

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.982) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
OTT
6-3-1
+10 GD · 2d rest
EDM
4-6-0
-2 GD · 3d rest
0.993
OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Senators are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
2 days rest.913 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM
Expected in goal
C. Ingram
3 days rest.848 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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