Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
Breakdown · SJS at MTL

Sharks hold off the Canadiens

The verdict · earned

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

SJS 4 · MTL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:20 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

Montreal controlled the shot sheet—55% of attempts, 27 shots to San Jose's 22—yet lost 4-2. The Sharks won because their chances mattered more. They finished with 57% of expected goals (4.84–3.65), a gap that explains the final score better than any single play.

Shot quality tells the story. The Sharks generated 0.091 xG per shot; Montreal managed only 0.059. Both teams scored twice off the rush: Montreal on 27 chances, San Jose on 26. But when play slowed and chances became rarer, the Sharks made the better looks count.

Both A. Nedeljkovic and J. Dobes outperformed their expected goals against. The Sharks goaltender saved 1.65 goals above expected (0.926 SV%, 25 of 27 saves), while Montreal's J. Dobes saved 1.84 above expected (0.857 SV%, 18 of 21). The Canadiens underperformed their xG by 1.65 goals, wasting volume. The Sharks underperformed by only 0.84. Montreal's wastefulness and San Jose's efficiency decided the game before either goalie's exceptional performance could matter much.

Macklin Celebrini's snapper from the wing in the third period (17:57) proved decisive. He finished with two goals and an assist in 22:11 of ice time. C. Graf added a goal and two assists in 17:10. N. Dobson led Montreal with two assists in 21:29, but could not shift the underlying story: the team that generated better chances and wasted fewer of them won.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 14
SJS
4
MTL
2

Sharks hold off the Canadiens

Chances 4.8 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
4.84
MTL
3.65
57% of the chances43%

The board read SJS 4, MTL 2. The chances read SJS 4.8, MTL 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
−0.8
goals above expected
SJS4.84 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL3.65 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canadiens left 1.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 07:21MTLC. Caufield0–1
  2. P1 13:12SJSM. Celebrini1–1
  3. P2 11:56SJSM. Ferraro2–1
  4. P2 16:20SJSC. Graf3–1
  5. P2 17:38MTLN. Suzuki3–2
  6. P3 17:57SJSM. CelebriniEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
43 shots
4
Final
90 shots
MTL
47 shots
2
SJS attackMTL attack
SJS MTL Goal
43
shots · 4 in
47
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSMTL
2 / 6
2.43 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.91 xG
1 / 18
1.86 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.98 xG
1 / 29
0.55 xG
Low
1 / 41
0.76 xG

The Canadiens went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Dobes
+1.8
MTL · 18/21
A
A. Nedeljkovic
+1.6
SJS · 25/27
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 11–16
  1. 07:21MTLC. Caufield(J. Slafkovský, N. Dobson)0–1
  2. 13:12SJSM. Celebrini(C. Graf, J. Klingberg)1–1
2ndshots 3–4
  1. 11:56SJSM. Ferraro(A. Wennberg, W. Eklund)2–1
  2. 16:20SJSC. Graf(M. Celebrini, J. Klingberg)3–1
  3. 17:38MTLN. Suzuki(I. Demidov, N. Dobson)3–2
3rdshots 8–7
  1. 17:57SJSM. Celebriniempty net(C. Graf, B. Goodrow)4–2

score reads SJS–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.84
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.043
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.84Expected goals3.65
SJS 57% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal27
6High-danger chances3
53All attempts (Corsi)62
Adjusted for score: SJS 45% · MTL 55%
Faceoffs · MTL won69%off71%neu43%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS2 / 6 · 2.43 xG
MTL0 / 3 · 0.91 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS1 / 18 · 1.86 xG
MTL1 / 18 · 1.98 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS1 / 29 · 0.55 xG
MTL1 / 41 · 0.76 xG

MTL went 1-for-18 from medium danger on 1.98 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
4 G · 4.84 xG · -0.8
MTL
2 G · 3.65 xG · -1.6
0123456

SJS finished -0.8 against expected, MTL -1.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
SNAP4/31
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/3
WRIST0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/10
MTL
SNAP2/29
SLAP0/8
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/2
WRIST0/3
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/15
SJS
MTL
Off the rush
2 G on 26
2.15 xG
2 G on 27
2.57 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.55 xG
0 G on 4
0.60 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SJS went 4-for-31, MTL 2-for-29. SJS 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
A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 25/27 · .926
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.9+0.9
Medium1/182.0+1.0
Low1/410.8-0.2

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

J. Dobes
MTL · 18/21 · .857
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/62.4+0.4
Medium1/181.9+0.9
Low1/290.6-0.5

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SJS
43 shots
4
Final
90 shots
MTL
47 shots
2
SJS attackMTL attack
SJS MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, MTL 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
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:11 on ice · +2
C. Graf
#51 · R · SJS
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:10 on ice · +2
N. Dobson
#53 · D · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:29 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:05 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 the Canadiens at 52% win probability—a genuine pick'em by any measure. Montreal's narrow edge traces to recent form: they're 6-1-3 over their last ten games, while San Jose limps in at -7 goal differential across the same span. Yet season-long structure sketches a tighter picture. Both teams sit at 48.0% expected goals share, and Montreal's possession advantage (49.0% Corsi%) barely outpaces San Jose's 47.0%.

Goal luck splits the teams. Montreal's PDO of 1.018 indicates they're running hot—outperforming their underlying expected output. San Jose at 0.998 sits near baseline, having absorbed some adverse variance. Regression is historical; Montreal's efficiency cushion won't hold.

The game hinges on playmaking and finish. Cole Caufield (0.97 xG/60, 33 goals, 16 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 20.0% shooting) is Montreal's crux—a sniper who converts high-quality chances into goals at an elite clip. Oliver Kapanen (0.83 xG/60, 19 goals, 12 assists, 4 high-danger goals, 17.8% shooting) deepens their offensive deck.

San Jose's attack relied on Pavol Regenda (1.10 xG/60, 5 goals, 1 assist, 2 high-danger goals, 16.1% shooting) as a centerpiece—but he's marked as likely unavailable. That absence forces Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 15.0% shooting) into the primary playmaking role. Chernyshov's offensive profile is sound, but his defensive play remains a liability.

The loss of Regenda lowers San Jose's ceiling. Montreal carries form momentum and a goal-luck edge, but the underlying metrics resist any compelling narrative. At 52%, the model hedges. It should.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MTL 52%
52%
MTL
Model favorite
48%
52%
SJS50MTL

MTL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SJS 2.5–2.6 MTL; 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
SJS← edge
edge →MTL
48.0%48.0%
47.0%49.0%
2.332.41
2.562.62
1.992.24
2.321.96
0.9981.018

MTL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SJS
4-4-2
-7 GD · 2d rest
MTL
6-1-3
+9 GD · 3d rest
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
MTL 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 (6-1-3 in their last 10).
  • The Sharks are underwater at -7 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
SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
2 days rest.951 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL
Expected in goal
J. Fowler
3 days rest.941 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
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
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
Keep going

Where to next