Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Tue, Mar 3 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at SJS

Sharks hold off the Canadiens

FinalTue, Mar 3
MTLMontreal Canadiens5SJSSan Jose Sharks7
The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.58–3.49 and won anyway.

MTL 5 · SJS 7
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:34 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 won 7-5 despite being outplayed significantly in expected goals. The Sharks generated only 3.49 xG to Montreal's 4.58—a 57%-43% split. This was a heist.

The Sharks' victory rested on two elements: elite goaltending and clinical finishing. Y. Askarov posted a 0.861 SV% and stopped all 7 high-danger chances. That's precision.

Montreal's collapse was equally stark. J. Dobes' 0.778 SV% came in 2.51 goals worse than expected—critical underperformance in a high-volume game. The Canadiens went 0 for 7 on high-danger chances while San Jose converted 2 of 5. In a 7-5 result, finishing in premium ice determines the winner.

The Sharks' rush game proved decisive: 7 goals on 29 attempts. Montreal answered with 5 on 35. M. Celebrini led with 1 goal and 3 assists in 22:49. W. Smith added 1 goal and 1 assist in 19:37. For Montreal, M. Matheson's 3 assists in 24:18 couldn't overcome the team's finish rate.

Adam Gaudette's wrist shot from the top of the circles with 19:56 left in the third marked the turning point. The Canadiens created volume elsewhere: 7 rebound chances that converted to nothing, 2 low-danger goals that shouldn't fall often. But Askarov's performance on high-danger shots rendered the rest secondary. The Sharks overperformed their xG by 3.51 goals. Some is luck; most is two goaltenders playing to opposite scripts.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 3
MTL
5
SJS
7

Sharks hold off the Canadiens

Chances 4.6 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
4.58
SJS
3.49
57% of the chances43%

The board read MTL 5, SJS 7. The chances read MTL 4.6, SJS 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+3.5
goals above expected
SJS3.49 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL4.58 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks scored 3.5 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. P1 06:18MTLO. Kapanen1–0
  2. P1 15:32SJSC. Graf1–1
  3. P2 05:09MTLP. Danault2–1
  4. P2 10:28SJSM. Misa2–2
  5. P2 18:23SJSM. Celebrini2–3
  6. P2 18:48SJSA. Wennberg2–4
  7. P3 03:29SJSW. SmithPP2–5
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
57 shots
5
Final
94 shots
SJS
37 shots
7
MTL attackSJS attack
MTL SJS Goal
57
shots · 5 in
37
shots · 7 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLSJS
0 / 7
1.79 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.73 xG
3 / 19
1.96 xG
Medium
4 / 9
1.05 xG
2 / 43
0.83 xG
Low
1 / 42
0.70 xG

The Canadiens went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
Y. Askarov
−0.4
SJS · 31/36
F
J. Dobes
−2.5
MTL · 21/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks hold off the Canadiens

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 8–8
  1. 06:18MTLO. Kapanen(J. Slafkovský, M. Matheson)1–0
  2. 15:32SJSC. Graf(W. Smith, M. Celebrini)1–1
2ndshots 10–9
  1. 05:09MTLP. Danault(M. Matheson, J. Evans)2–1
  2. 10:28SJSM. Misa2–2
  3. 18:23SJSM. Celebrini(C. Graf)2–3
  4. 18:48SJSA. Wennberg(K. Sherwood)2–4
3rdshots 18–11
  1. 03:29SJSW. Smithpower play(M. Celebrini, D. Orlov)2–5
  2. 05:02MTLI. Demidovpower play(L. Hutson, N. Suzuki)3–5
  3. 05:20MTLA. Newhook(J. Evans, K. Guhle)4–5
  4. 10:56MTLA. Newhookpower play(B. Gallagher, M. Matheson)5–5
  5. 16:34SJSK. Sherwoodpower play(P. Kurashev, W. Eklund)5–6
  6. 19:56SJSA. Gaudetteempty net(M. Celebrini)5–7

score reads MTL–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.49
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.052
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.58Expected goals3.49
MTL 57% of the chance quality
36Shots on goal28
7High-danger chances5
69All attempts (Corsi)56
Adjusted for score: MTL 56% · SJS 44%
Faceoffs · SJS won38%off48%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL0 / 7 · 1.79 xG
SJS2 / 5 · 1.73 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL3 / 19 · 1.96 xG
SJS4 / 9 · 1.05 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL2 / 43 · 0.83 xG
SJS1 / 42 · 0.70 xG

SJS went 4-for-9 from medium danger on 1.05 expected goals — 3.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
5 G · 4.58 xG · +0.4
SJS
7 G · 3.49 xG · +3.5
012345678

MTL finished +0.4 against expected, SJS +3.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST3/39
SLAP1/7
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
SNAP0/1
OTHER0/12
SJS
WRIST6/31
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND1/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
SNAP0/0
OTHER0/19
MTL
SJS
Off the rush
5 G on 35
2.87 xG
7 G on 29
3.09 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
1.42 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 3-for-39, SJS 6-for-31. SJS scored 7 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
J. Dobes
MTL · 21/27 · .778
-2.5
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.7-0.3
Medium4/91.1-3.0
Low1/420.7-0.3

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

Y. Askarov
SJS · 31/36 · .861
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.8+1.8
Medium3/192.0-1.0
Low2/430.8-1.2

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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
57 shots
5
Final
94 shots
SJS
37 shots
7
MTL attackSJS attack
MTL SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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
1 G · 3 A · 7 SOG · 22:49 on ice
M. Matheson
#8 · D · MTL
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 24:18 on ice
W. Smith
#2 · C · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:37 on ice · -1
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, 5:32 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 project a near-even matchup: Montreal 2.5–2.6 expected goals, San Jose at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Montreal enters with form on its side. The Canadiens are 6-2-2 over their last ten games, while San Jose sits at -6 goal differential over the same span—a record of consistent underperformance.

At 5-on-5, both teams generate exactly 48.0% expected goals, meaning they've created identical shot quality. Montreal's Corsi% edge (49.0% to 47.0%) suggests a marginal advantage in shot volume. The real concern for Montreal is their PDO of 1.018—running hot by league standards, which predicts regression is coming.

Cole Caufield is Montreal's centerpiece: 33 goals with 0.97 xG/60 and a 20.0% shooting percentage that far exceeds league norms. Oliver Kapanen (19 goals, 17.8% shooting) provides secondary firepower. San Jose must neutralize both if they're to win.

Pavol Regenda is marked inactive, removing what would be San Jose's prime matchup threat. Igor Chernyshov (6 goals, 0.91 xG/60, 15.0% shooting) is the Sharks' most dangerous forward, though he's also a defensive liability.

Mike Matheson is Montreal's defensive liability; Igor Chernyshov is San Jose's. Each team can exploit the other's weakness.

Neither team scores much from high-danger chances or rebounds; both generate 0% of their goals from those sources.

Montreal's recent form and player quality give them the edge in a game the models score as even. Their hot PDO, however, signals regression is due—just perhaps not today.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

SJS 52%
52%
SJS
Model favorite
48%
52%
MTL50SJS

SJS by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MTL 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
MTL← edge
edge →SJS
48.0%48.0%
49.0%47.0%
2.412.33
2.622.56
2.241.99
1.962.32
1.0180.998

MTL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.998) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MTL
6-2-2
+11 GD · 2d rest
SJS
4-5-1
-6 GD · 2d rest
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Canadiens are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
  • The Sharks are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
2 days rest.931 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
2 days rest.964 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% 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