Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
Breakdown · NSH at VAN

Canucks run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

NSH 3 · VAN 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:59 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

The Canucks won 4-3 in a shootout, yet they should have won by more. They controlled 65% of expected goals (4.54–2.48) and outchanced Nashville 9–3 on high-danger looks. The fact that it needed a shootout says everything about how well J. Saros played: +1.54 versus his xG model, keeping his team alive despite being outplayed.

Vancouver's superiority was relentless. They held 59% of shot attempts and thrived on the rush—two goals on 36 chances. M. Rossi led the way with 1G and 2A in just 14:08; F. Hronek added 1G and 1A in 29:03, while B. Boeser chipped in 1G and 1A in 18:26. The Predators simply had no depth to match.

The Canucks' one vulnerability: N. Tolopilo finished -0.52 vs expected on 16/19 saves, allowing more than the shot quality warranted. Had J. Saros's brilliance not nearly offset that deficit, Nashville escapes with a point. Jake DeBrusk's wrist shot from the slot in the shootout prevented that.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Mar 12
NSH
3
VAN
4

Canucks run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
2.48
VAN
4.54
35% of the chances65%

The board read NSH 3, VAN 4. The chances read NSH 2.5, VAN 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
−0.5
goals above expected
VAN4.54 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH2.48 expected · 3 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 08:40VANB. Boeser0–1
  2. P1 18:28NSHT. Jost1–1
  3. P2 05:20NSHT. Jost2–1
  4. P2 14:06NSHM. Wood3–1
  5. P3 15:55VANM. Rossi3–2
  6. P3 18:59VANF. HronekPP3–3
  7. SO 00:00VANJ. DeBruskPP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
34 shots
3
Final
86 shots
VAN
52 shots
4
NSH attackVAN attack
NSH VAN Goal
34
shots · 3 in
52
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHVAN
2 / 3
0.71 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.17 xG
0 / 12
1.31 xG
Medium
2 / 18
1.78 xG
1 / 28
0.45 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.59 xG

High-danger looks: NSH 2 of 3, VAN 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Saros
+1.5
NSH · 24/27
D
N. Tolopilo
−0.5
VAN · 16/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks run the Predators 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 5–12
  1. 08:40VANB. Boeser(M. Rossi, F. Hronek)0–1
  2. 18:28NSHT. Jost(J. Barron, F. Svechkov)1–1
2ndshots 8–6
  1. 05:20NSHT. Jost(R. Josi, R. Ufko)2–1
  2. 14:06NSHM. Wood3–1
3rdshots 3–7
  1. 15:55VANM. Rossi(L. Ohgren)3–2
  2. 18:59VANF. Hronekpower play(B. Boeser, M. Rossi)3–3
OTshots 3–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00VANJ. DeBruskpower play3–3

    score reads NSH–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.54
    VAN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.976
    VAN puck luck
    Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
    60.6%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.48Expected goals4.54
    VAN 65% of the chance quality
    19Shots on goal27
    3High-danger chances9
    43All attempts (Corsi)66
    Adjusted for score: NSH 37% · VAN 63%
    Faceoffs · VAN won54%off54%neu69%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH2 / 3 · 0.71 xG
    VAN1 / 9 · 2.17 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH0 / 12 · 1.31 xG
    VAN2 / 18 · 1.78 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH1 / 28 · 0.45 xG
    VAN0 / 39 · 0.59 xG

    NSH went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.31 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    3 G · 2.48 xG · +0.5
    VAN
    4 G · 4.54 xG · -0.5
    012345

    NSH finished +0.5 against expected, VAN -0.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    SNAP1/7
    WRIST2/17
    TIP IN0/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/12
    VAN
    SNAP1/25
    WRIST1/11
    TIP IN1/7
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/17
    NSH
    VAN
    Off the rush
    1 G on 19
    1.48 xG
    2 G on 36
    3.54 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 3
    0.53 xG
    1 G on 4
    0.65 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: NSH went 1-for-7, VAN 1-for-25. VAN scored 2 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. Saros
    NSH · 24/27 · .889
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/92.2+1.2
    Medium2/181.8-0.2
    Low0/390.6+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

    N. Tolopilo
    VAN · 16/19 · .842
    -0.5
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/30.7-1.3
    Medium0/121.3+1.3
    Low1/280.5-0.6

    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

    86 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    34 shots
    3
    Final
    86 shots
    VAN
    52 shots
    4
    NSH attackVAN attack
    NSH VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH left, VAN 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. Rossi
    #93 · C · VAN
    1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:08 on ice · +2
    F. Hronek
    #17 · D · VAN
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 29:03 on ice · +3
    B. Boeser
    #6 · R · VAN
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:26 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 12
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:57 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 Nashville 2.6, Vancouver 2.5, with the Predators at 52% win probability — this is as close to a pick'em as it gets. What tips the scales barely is Nashville's edge in the underlying game.

    The Predators are the hotter team, posting a 4-4-2 record in their last 10 games by points pace. Vancouver, meanwhile, is drowning: -20 goal differential over the same span tells you the Canucks have been outplayed in ways the standings haven't fully captured yet.

    That underlying edge shows up in the advanced numbers. Nashville owns 49.0% expected goals at 5v5, compared to Vancouver's 44.0% — a meaningful gap that suggests the Predators are consistently generating the better scoring chances. They're also winning the territorial battle at 50.0% Corsi, which means their forwards are spending more time in the offensive zone.

    Vancouver's PDO sits at 0.974, a sign-post that reads "running cold." The Canucks are due for positive regression, and if their finishing sharpens or their goaltending steadies, they'll close this gap. But they haven't yet.

    The wildcard is J. Saros. He's on a back-to-back, and Nashville may opt for a fresh body in goal — or start him anyway and risk asking too much of a tired netminder.

    For Nashville, watch Zachary L'Heureux. He's generating 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes and has buried 4 goals with a shooting percentage of 16.0%, meaning he's converting at an elite clip. Filip Forsberg, at 0.80 xG/60, adds another layer: his 23 goals and 13.6% shooting rate make him dangerous on any possession Vancouver relinquishes.

    Vancouver has the offensive horsepower to punish mistakes. Filip Chytil leads the way at 1.03 xG/60 and has 3 goals on 15.0% shooting, while Drew O'Connor chips in at 0.85 xG/60 with 13 goals on 11.8% shooting. But volume and efficiency aren't the same as consistency, and the Canucks' recent production suggests they're fighting the odds.

    Nashville's defensive weakness lies with Jonathan Marchessault, while Victor Mancini is Vancouver's softer spot. This is a game where the numbers favor Nashville slightly, but the margin is thin enough that goaltending, depth scoring, and the occasional lucky bounce could flip it either way. It's a coin flip with a barely perceptible lean.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    NSH 52%
    52%
    NSH
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    NSH50VAN

    NSH by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NSH 2.6–2.5 VAN; 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
    NSH← edge
    edge →VAN
    49.0%44.0%
    50.0%46.0%
    2.482.22
    2.582.81
    1.841.60
    2.212.56
    0.9920.974

    NSH holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 vs 0.974) says NSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    NSH
    4-4-2
    +0 GD · 1d rest
    VAN
    1-6-3
    -20 GD · 2d rest
    0.992
    NSH PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Predators own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Predators own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • J. Saros is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Predators are the hotter team by points pace (4-4-2 in their last 10).
    • The Canucks are underwater at -20 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    NSH
    Expected in goal
    J. Saros
    back-to-back.956 last start
    Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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.

    VAN
    Expected in goal
    K. Lankinen
    2 days rest.957 last start
    Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
    NSH
    Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
    0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
    Filip Forsberg23G 17A
    0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
    VAN
    Filip Chytil3G 0A
    1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Drew O'Connor13G 11A
    0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next