Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater

Breakdown · SEA at VAN

Kraken pull away from the Canucks

FinalSat, Mar 14

SEASeattle Kraken5 VANVancouver Canucks2

The verdict · stolen

The Kraken stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.14–3.53 and won anyway.

SEA 5 · VAN 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:14 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

Vancouver dominated the underlying play yet lost 5–2, a scoreline that revealed how thoroughly variance can invert the truth.

The Canucks held 51% of shot attempts (34–33 on goal) and led expected goals 3.53–3.14. High-danger chances split evenly at 6–6. None of it mattered: Vancouver converted zero of six high-danger chances, underperforming their xG by 1.53 goals. That's not bad luck. That's wasted excellence.

Seattle's finish was surgical by comparison. The Kraken outscored their xG by 1.86—elite overperformance born from either precision placement or fortune, likely both. P. Grubauer crystallized that advantage: a 0.941 save percentage (32 of 34) meant he stopped 1.5 more than expected, and he denied all six high-danger chances.

N. Tolopilo faced the inverse nightmare. His 0.848 save percentage (28 of 33) meant 1.9 goals beyond expectation—a gap that made one goaltender the architect of defeat and the other its savior.

The match turned in the third period when Marco Rossi's wrist shot from a sharp angle (19:40) shifted Seattle's rhythm from even to commanding. The Kraken's speed thereafter was lethal: four goals on 26 rush chances proved that when Vancouver's defense fractured, Seattle didn't miss.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 14

SEA

VAN

Kraken pull away from the Canucks

Chances 3.1 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

3.14

VAN

3.53

47% of the chances53%

The board read SEA 5, VAN 2. The chances read SEA 3.1, VAN 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

SEA

+1.9

goals above expected

SEA3.14 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN3.53 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Kraken scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 04:12SEAJ. McCann1–0
P1 11:42VANE. Kane1–1
P1 19:10SEAB. McMannPP2–1
P2 05:06SEAJ. Oleksiak3–1
P3 04:14SEAB. McMann4–1
P3 09:58SEAM. Beniers5–1
P3 19:40VANM. Rossi5–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

SEA

44 shots

Final

92 shots

VAN

48 shots

SEA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEAVAN

1 / 6

1.37 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.47 xG

3 / 11

1.14 xG

Medium

2 / 14

1.41 xG

1 / 45

0.63 xG

Low

0 / 37

0.65 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

P. Grubauer

+1.5

SEA · 32/34

N. Tolopilo

−1.9

VAN · 28/33

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kraken pull away from the Canucks

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 10–15

04:12SEAJ. McCann(B. Montour, J. Eberle)1–0
11:42VANE. Kane(D. O'Connor, Z. Buium)1–1
19:10SEAB. McMannpower play(E. Tolvanen, S. Wright)2–1

2ndshots 11–11

05:06SEAJ. Oleksiak(M. Beniers, B. Montour)3–1

3rdshots 12–8

04:14SEAB. McMann(J. Eberle, M. Beniers)4–1
09:58SEAM. Beniers(J. Eberle, B. McMann)5–1
19:40VANM. Rossi(B. Boeser)5–2

score reads SEA–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.14

SEA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.046

SEA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

52.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.14Expected goals3.53

VAN 53% of the chance quality

33Shots on goal34

6High-danger chances6

62All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: SEA 47% · VAN 53%

Faceoffs · VAN won69%off64%neu55%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA1 / 6 · 1.37 xG

VAN0 / 6 · 1.47 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA3 / 11 · 1.14 xG

VAN2 / 14 · 1.41 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA1 / 45 · 0.63 xG

VAN0 / 37 · 0.65 xG

SEA went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.14 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

5 G · 3.14 xG · +1.9

VAN

2 G · 3.53 xG · -1.5

0123456

SEA finished +1.9 against expected, VAN -1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

WRIST4/30

SLAP0/6

TIP IN1/3

BACKHAND0/3

SNAP0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/18

VAN

WRIST1/33

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND1/2

SNAP0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/9

SEA

VAN

Off the rush

4 G on 26

1.81 xG

1 G on 25

2.04 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.80 xG

0 G on 8

0.89 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 4-for-30, VAN 1-for-33. SEA scored 4 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

P. Grubauer

SEA · 32/34 · .941

+1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.5+1.5

Medium2/141.4-0.6

Low0/370.7+0.7

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 · 28/33 · .848

-1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.4+0.4

Medium3/111.1-1.9

Low1/450.6-0.4

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

SEA

44 shots

Final

92 shots

VAN

48 shots

SEA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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. Beniers

#10 · C · SEA

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:31 on ice · +4

B. McMann

#74 · C · SEA

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:04 on ice · +1

J. Eberle

#7 · R · SEA

0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 16:12 on ice · +4

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, 7:12 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 2.5-2.5 game with the Canucks at 50% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as analytical work gets.

Both teams are mired in ugly stretches. Vancouver is -18 in goal differential over its last 10; Seattle is -12. Yet the underlying advanced metrics suggest this is nearly a dead heat at even strength: the Kraken hold 46.0% expected goals and 45.0% Corsi, while the Canucks match that with 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. The difference sits entirely in finish and luck.

Vancouver's 0.974 PDO tells the story. The Canucks are running cold and due for positive regression—they're outplaying results. Seattle's 1.011 PDO cuts the other way, though not by much. This is a variance-driven matchup, not a fundamental talent gap.

Uncertainty clouds the goaltending. N. Tolopilo starts for Seattle on the back-to-back, with backup rumblings possible. P. Grubauer faces the same fatigue scenario for Vancouver. A tired or replaced starter could swing momentum either way.

The forward matchups clarify the stakes. Seattle's Shane Wright has generated 0.77 expected goals per 60 minutes with 8 goals and 10 assists; he's buried 4 high-danger chances at 10.4% shooting. Berkly Catton sits slightly lower in volume (0.68 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists) but has converted 5 high-danger chances efficiently at 8.8%. Chandler Stephenson remains the Kraken's defensive weak link.

Vancouver counters with Filip Chytil, who leads in per-60 value at 1.03 xG/60 despite only 3 goals and zero assists—a volume-without-finish profile that invites positive regression. Drew O'Connor has materialized that potential: 13 goals, 11 assists, 3 high-danger conversions at 11.8% shooting. Victor Mancini is where Vancouver's defensive vulnerabilities live.

Both teams post identical patterns: zero high-danger goal rate and zero rebound goal rate, neutralizing secondary scoring. That leaves the game to variance, depth alignment, and goaltending execution—none of which tilts decisively either direction.

This is a coin flip because the math says so. The Canucks have an edge in luck (regression pending), and the Kraken have a sliver in stability. It cancels out.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VAN 50%

50%

VAN

Model favorite

50%

SEA50VAN

VAN by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SEA 2.5–2.5 VAN; 19% 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

SEA← edge

edge →VAN

46.0%44.0%

45.0%46.0%

2.132.22

2.512.81

1.871.60

1.952.56

1.0110.974

SEA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 0.974) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SEA

3-7-0

-12 GD · 1d rest

VAN

2-6-2

-18 GD · 1d rest

1.011

SEA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

N. Tolopilo is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
P. Grubauer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Canucks are underwater at -18 goal differential over their last 10.
The Kraken are underwater at -12 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

SEA

Expected in goal

P. Grubauer

back-to-back.818 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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

N. Tolopilo

back-to-back.842 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.

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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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

Back to the front page