Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater

Breakdown · SJS at EDM

Oilers hold off the Sharks

FinalTue, Mar 17

The verdict · coin flip

The Oilers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

SJS 3 · EDM 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:38 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

Expected goals split dead even at 4.25–4.24, yet Edmonton won 5–3—a two-goal gap that goaltending variance explains almost entirely.

The underlying play favored Edmonton modestly. The Oilers held 55% of shot attempts (37–30 on goal) and had high-danger chances 7–6. But xG registered as a draw.

C. Ingram (EDM) saved 27 of 30 shots for a 0.900 SV%, beating expected performance by 1.24 goals. A. Nedeljkovic (SJS) saved 32 of 37 for 0.865 SV%, falling 0.75 short. That two-goal swing in save performance created the scoreboard gap.

Both teams scored 3 rush goals; the Oilers on 28 attempts, San Jose on 26. Two of Edmonton's five goals came from low-danger areas—the kind of chances goaltenders need to stop.

Zach Hyman's backhander from the doorstep in the third period (P3, 08:12) proved the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 17

SJS

EDM

Oilers hold off the Sharks

Chances 4.2 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Oilers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

SJS

4.24

EDM

4.25

50% of the chances50%

The board read SJS 3, EDM 5. The chances read SJS 4.2, EDM 4.3.

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

Luck check

EDM

+0.8

goals above expected

EDM4.25 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

SJS4.24 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

P1 07:24SJSD. Orlov1–0
P1 10:00EDMR. Nugent-HopkinsPP1–1
P1 11:15EDMC. Murphy1–2
P1 14:18EDMV. Podkolzin1–3
P2 08:17SJSP. Regenda2–3
P2 14:36SJSK. Sherwood3–3
P3 04:49EDMM. Jones3–4

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

SJS

49 shots

Final

92 shots

EDM

43 shots

SJS EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SJSEDM

1 / 6

1.77 xG

High danger

1 / 7

1.77 xG

1 / 14

1.69 xG

Medium

2 / 18

1.96 xG

1 / 38

0.79 xG

Low

2 / 34

0.52 xG

High-danger looks: SJS 1 of 6, EDM 1 of 7.

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

In the net

B+

C. Ingram

+1.2

EDM · 27/30

A. Nedeljkovic

−0.8

SJS · 32/37

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Oilers hold off the Sharks

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 8–10

07:24SJSD. Orlov(A. Wennberg, K. Sherwood)1–0
10:00EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)1–1
11:15EDMC. Murphy(J. Dickinson, J. Roslovic)1–2
14:18EDMV. Podkolzin(A. Henrique)1–3

2ndshots 15–12

08:17SJSP. Regenda(M. Ferraro, A. Gaudette)2–3
14:36SJSK. Sherwood(D. Orlov)3–3

3rdshots 7–15

04:49EDMM. Jones(A. Henrique, T. Frederic)3–4
08:12EDMZ. Hyman(M. Savoie, M. Ekholm)3–5

score reads SJS–EDM

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.25

EDM chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.8

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.033

EDM puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.4%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.24Expected goals4.25

EDM 50% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal37

6High-danger chances7

58All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: SJS 54% · EDM 46%

Faceoffs · EDM won52%off67%neu47%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SJS1 / 6 · 1.77 xG

EDM1 / 7 · 1.77 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SJS1 / 14 · 1.69 xG

EDM2 / 18 · 1.96 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SJS1 / 38 · 0.79 xG

EDM2 / 34 · 0.52 xG

EDM went 2-for-34 from low danger on 0.52 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SJS

3 G · 4.24 xG · -1.2

EDM

5 G · 4.25 xG · +0.8

0123456

SJS finished -1.2 against expected, EDM +0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SJS

SNAP0/17

WRIST2/13

SLAP0/10

TIP IN1/6

BACKHAND0/2

POKE0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/9

EDM

SNAP2/13

WRIST2/13

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND1/5

POKE0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/16

SJS

EDM

Off the rush

3 G on 26

2.84 xG

3 G on 28

2.56 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

0.87 xG

1 G on 6

1.40 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SJS went 0-for-17, EDM 2-for-13. SJS 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

A. Nedeljkovic

SJS · 32/37 · .865

-0.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.8+0.8

Medium2/182.0-0.0

Low2/340.5-1.5

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

C. Ingram

EDM · 27/30 · .900

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.8+0.8

Medium1/141.7+0.7

Low1/380.8-0.2

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SJS

49 shots

Final

92 shots

EDM

43 shots

SJS EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, EDM 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

D. Orlov

#9 · D · SJS

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:09 on ice

K. Sherwood

#44 · L · SJS

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:29 on ice · +3

A. Henrique

#19 · C · EDM

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 10:12 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 17

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:36 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 an Oilers victory with 56% win probability in a 2.4 to 2.7 goal range.

Edmonton owns the underlying play. The Oilers generate 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals against San Jose's 48.0%, meaning they create more dangerous scoring chances. That same control extends to shot volume: Edmonton drives 50.0% Corsi compared to the Sharks' 47.0%. Puck possession and shot quality are the primary predictors of wins, and the Oilers lead both.

The Oilers also have efficiency tailwinds. Edmonton's PDO of 0.982 indicates their actual results have underperformed their underlying performance—they're scoring less and allowing more than their play deserves. That dynamic typically reverses. San Jose's 0.998 PDO is neutral, suggesting the Sharks' results already reflect their quality.

One operational detail colors the matchup: C. Ingram faces a back-to-back, introducing risk of backup deployment or starter fatigue.

Players to Watch

San Jose

Pavol Regenda — 1.10 xG/60, 5G 1A, 16.1% shooting (marked inactive)
Igor Chernyshov — 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, 15.0% shooting

Edmonton

Zach Hyman — 1.23 xG/60, 14G 13A, 13.0% shooting
Connor McDavid — 0.92 xG/60, 25G 33A, 13.7% shooting

Regenda's inactivity removes San Jose's most prolific creator. Chernyshov carries a 15.0% shooting rate—above-average conversion that rarely sustains. For Edmonton, Hyman leads at 1.23 xG/60, making him the Oilers' volume engine. McDavid's 25 goals and 33 assists demonstrate how elite efficiency compounds: even at 0.92 xG/60, he still produces at a pace that overwhelms opponents. Jake Walman represents Edmonton's defensive weak link.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 56%

56%

EDM

Model favorite

44%

56%

SJS50EDM

EDM by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.4–2.7 EDM; 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 →EDM

48.0%52.0%

47.0%50.0%

2.332.64

2.562.47

1.992.13

2.322.29

0.9980.982

EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.982) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SJS

5-3-2

-3 GD · 2d rest

EDM

5-4-1

+2 GD · 1d rest

0.998

SJS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.982

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
C. Ingram is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

SJS

Expected in goal

L. Brossoit

2 days rest.783 last start

Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM

Expected in goal

C. Ingram

back-to-back.963 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.

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page