Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Sun, Mar 8 · the slate
Breakdown · EDM at VGK

Oilers hold off the Golden Knights

FinalSun, Mar 8
EDMEdmonton Oilers4VGKVegas Golden Knights2
The verdict · earned

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

EDM 4 · VGK 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:19 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 4-2 victory over Vegas masks an uncomfortable truth for the Golden Knights: they controlled the game's volume but couldn't convert it. Vegas held 58% of shot attempts (26–19), yet generated only 43% of expected goals (2.93 to Edmonton's 3.84). The delta between shot volume and actual danger reveals everything.

The Oilers' advantage wasn't in shot volume—it was in shot quality. Edmonton's attack averaged 0.083 expected goals per attempt; Vegas managed 0.046. That differential crystallizes in the high-danger count: Edmonton 8, Vegas 3. Quality beats volume.

Vegas's inefficiency showed up in two places. Goaltending tells part of the story: C. Ingram (EDM) stopped 24 of 26 for a 0.923 save percentage, running 0.93 goals above expected. A. Hill (VGK) faced 18 shots, allowing 3 for a 0.833 save percentage, running 0.84 above expectation. But Vegas's larger problem was underperformance: they missed on 0.93 goals against their xG. The math said the puck should've found the net; it didn't.

Edmonton's superiority manifested on the rush: three goals on 24 chances. Vegas crashed the net, generating six rebound opportunities, but couldn't finish any of them.

Kasperi Kapanen's wrist shot from the high slot at 18:03 of the third period put the game out of reach. By then, the underlying metrics had already written the script.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 8
EDM
4
VGK
2

Oilers hold off the Golden Knights

Chances 3.8 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
3.84
VGK
2.93
57% of the chances43%

The board read EDM 4, VGK 2. The chances read EDM 3.8, VGK 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+0.2
goals above expected
EDM3.84 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VGK2.93 expected · 2 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. P2 03:21EDMT. Frederic1–0
  2. P2 13:09VGKN. Hanifin1–1
  3. P3 02:34EDMV. Podkolzin2–1
  4. P3 11:53EDML. Draisaitl3–1
  5. P3 16:43VGKJ. EichelSH3–2
  6. P3 18:03EDMK. KapanenEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
34 shots
4
Final
79 shots
VGK
45 shots
2
EDM attackVGK attack
EDM VGK Goal
34
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMVGK
2 / 8
2.33 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.66 xG
1 / 9
0.99 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.48 xG
1 / 29
0.52 xG
Low
1 / 48
0.79 xG

The Golden Knights went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
C. Ingram
+0.9
EDM · 24/26
B+
A. Hill
+0.8
VGK · 15/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers hold off the Golden Knights

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 7–7no goals
    2ndshots 4–11
    1. 03:21EDMT. Frederic(E. Bouchard, C. Dach)1–0
    2. 13:09VGKN. Hanifin(M. Marner, I. Barbashev)1–1
    3rdshots 8–8
    1. 02:34EDMV. Podkolzin2–1
    2. 11:53EDML. Draisaitl(C. McDavid)3–1
    3. 16:43VGKJ. Eichelshorthanded(M. Marner)3–2
    4. 18:03EDMK. Kapanenempty net(C. McDavid, M. Ekholm)4–2

    score reads EDM–VGK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.84
    EDM chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.056
    EDM puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    41.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.84Expected goals2.93
    EDM 57% of the chance quality
    19Shots on goal26
    8High-danger chances3
    46All attempts (Corsi)64
    Adjusted for score: EDM 40% · VGK 60%
    Faceoffs · VGK won64%off53%neu25%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    EDM2 / 8 · 2.33 xG
    VGK0 / 3 · 0.66 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    EDM1 / 9 · 0.99 xG
    VGK1 / 13 · 1.48 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    EDM1 / 29 · 0.52 xG
    VGK1 / 48 · 0.79 xG

    VGK went 0-for-3 from high danger on 0.66 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    EDM
    4 G · 3.84 xG · +0.2
    VGK
    2 G · 2.93 xG · -0.9
    012345

    EDM finished +0.2 against expected, VGK -0.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    EDM
    WRIST3/15
    SNAP0/5
    BACKHAND1/7
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/12
    VGK
    WRIST1/19
    SNAP1/7
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/7
    SLAP0/5
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/19
    EDM
    VGK
    Off the rush
    3 G on 24
    2.48 xG
    1 G on 31
    1.68 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 2
    0.48 xG
    0 G on 6
    0.82 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 3-for-15, VGK 1-for-19. EDM 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
    C. Ingram
    EDM · 24/26 · .923
    +0.9
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium1/131.5+0.5
    Low1/480.8-0.2

    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

    A. Hill
    VGK · 15/18 · .833
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/82.3+0.3
    Medium1/91.0-0.0
    Low1/290.5-0.5

    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

    79 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    EDM
    34 shots
    4
    Final
    79 shots
    VGK
    45 shots
    2
    EDM attackVGK attack
    EDM VGK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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
    C. McDavid
    #97 · C · EDM
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:37 on ice · +1
    M. Marner
    #93 · R · VGK
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:29 on ice · +1
    E. Bouchard
    #2 · D · EDM
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:51 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Mar 8
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:16 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 can't pick a winner. Edmonton and Vegas are nearly identical on paper: the projection calls for a 2.4–2.6 goal game with the Golden Knights at a coin-flip 54% win probability, the kind of edge that disappears in the margin of error.

    Both teams rank within a percentage point of each other in expected-goal share and shot-attempt rate. Edmonton sits at 52.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%; Vegas counters with 54.0% xG% and 52.0% Corsi%. The only clear divergence is modest: Vegas's possession numbers are slightly better. But both teams are running identical PDOs of 0.982 and 0.983—just cold enough that regression favors whoever gets hot first.

    The goaltending situation tilts neither way. A. Schmid and T. Jarry are both on back-to-backs, which means both could be backed up or both could play tired. It's a wash.

    The critical distinction is offensive depth. Connor McDavid supplies the obvious threat: 25 goals, 33 assists, 0.92 xG/60, 13.7% shooting. But Zach Hyman adds a second elite option: 14 goals, 13 assists, 1.23 xG/60, 13.0% shooting.

    Vegas's scoreline is thinner. Tomas Hertl is solid but not exceptional: 5 goals, 17 assists, 0.88 xG/60, 4.3% shooting. Brandon Saad, likely out, was meant to provide secondary punch with 0.91 xG/60. The absence compounds Vegas's offensive design.

    Both teams are inefficient in high-danger areas. Each registered a 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, suggesting neither has seized scoring chances at the margin. Vegas's defensive weak link is Rasmus Andersson; Edmonton's is Jake Walman. The team that limits damage from those gaps wins.

    This is a true toss-up: marginal possession advantage for Vegas, marginal scoring depth favoring Edmonton, mutual goaltending uncertainty, and nearly identical efficiency. The model got it right. Flip a coin.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 54%
    54%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    46%
    54%
    EDM50VGK

    VGK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 2.4–2.6 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
    EDM← edge
    edge →VGK
    52.0%54.0%
    50.0%52.0%
    2.642.52
    2.472.11
    2.132.12
    2.292.10
    0.9820.983

    VGK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 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
    EDM
    4-6-0
    -1 GD · 1d rest
    VGK
    4-6-0
    -2 GD · 1d rest
    0.982
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • A. Schmid is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • T. Jarry is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • 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
    EDM
    Expected in goal
    T. Jarry
    back-to-back.839 last start
    Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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.

    VGK
    Expected in goal
    A. Schmid
    back-to-back.833 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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
    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
    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