Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
← Thu, Mar 19 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at EDM

Panthers shut out the Oilers, 4-0

FinalThu, Mar 19
FLAFlorida Panthers4EDMEdmonton Oilers0
The verdict · coin flip

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

FLA 4 · EDM 0
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:56 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

Florida's 4-0 victory masks what the underlying metrics suggest was a close game. Expected goals favored Edmonton 3.10–3.02, yet the Panthers' goaltending and execution transformed a near-even contest into a shutout.

S. Bobrovsky was the difference. He stopped 3.1 more goals than expected while C. Ingram allowed 0.98 more than expected — a combined 4-goal swing that explains the scoreline. The Oilers held 48% of shot attempts and generated quality chances, including 5 high-danger attempts to Florida's 4, but emerged scoreless. The Panthers converted 2 of their 5 high-danger chances (40%), then added a third goal on the rush, where they scored 3 times on 26 attempts.

E. Rodrigues set the tone with 2 assists in 17:44, establishing offensive rhythm. S. Bennett (2A, 16:26) and M. Benning (2A, 15:43) sustained that pressure through their shifts. Edmonton's secondary chances — three rebound opportunities in particular — went unconverted.

Carter Verhaeghe's snap shot from the high slot at 15:23 was the turning point, a moment when the Panthers' execution in tight quarters overwhelmed Edmonton's structure.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 19
FLA
4
EDM
0

Panthers shut out the Oilers, 4-0

Chances 3.0 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Panthers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
3.02
EDM
3.10
49% of the chances51%

The board read FLA 4, EDM 0. The chances read FLA 3.0, EDM 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+1.0
goals above expected
FLA3.02 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM3.10 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Oilers left 3.1 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 11:12FLAC. Reinhardt1–0
  2. P1 19:02FLAA. Greer2–0
  3. P2 14:21FLAA. LundellPP3–0
  4. P3 15:23FLAC. Verhaeghe4–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
40 shots
4
Final
75 shots
EDM
35 shots
0
FLA attackEDM attack
FLA EDM Goal
40
shots · 4 in
35
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLAEDM
2 / 5
1.23 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.00 xG
2 / 11
1.17 xG
Medium
0 / 10
1.44 xG
0 / 40
0.62 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.66 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Bobrovsky
+3.1
FLA · 21/21
D-
C. Ingram
−1.0
EDM · 19/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers shut out the Oilers, 4-0

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 12–8
  1. 11:12FLAC. Reinhardt(M. Benning)1–0
  2. 19:02FLAA. Greer(M. Benning, E. Rodrigues)2–0
2ndshots 5–9
  1. 14:21FLAA. Lundellpower play(S. Bennett, E. Rodrigues)3–0
3rdshots 6–4
  1. 15:23FLAC. Verhaeghe(M. Tkachuk, S. Bennett)4–0

score reads FLA–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.02
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.071
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.02Expected goals3.10
EDM 51% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal21
5High-danger chances4
56All attempts (Corsi)46
Adjusted for score: FLA 49% · EDM 51%
Faceoffs · EDM won54%off73%neu36%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA2 / 5 · 1.23 xG
EDM0 / 4 · 1.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA2 / 11 · 1.17 xG
EDM0 / 10 · 1.44 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA0 / 40 · 0.62 xG
EDM0 / 32 · 0.66 xG

EDM went 0-for-10 from medium danger on 1.44 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
4 G · 3.02 xG · +1.0
EDM
0 G · 3.10 xG · -3.1
012345

FLA finished +1.0 against expected, EDM -3.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST1/17
SLAP0/7
SNAP2/11
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/16
EDM
WRIST0/11
SLAP0/8
SNAP0/4
TIP IN0/8
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/11
FLA
EDM
Off the rush
3 G on 26
1.84 xG
0 G on 22
2.43 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.23 xG
0 G on 3
0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 1-for-17, EDM 0-for-11. FLA 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
S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 21/21 · 1.000
+3.1
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium0/101.4+1.4
Low0/320.7+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

C. Ingram
EDM · 19/23 · .826
-1.0
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium2/111.2-0.8
Low0/400.6+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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
40 shots
4
Final
75 shots
EDM
35 shots
0
FLA attackEDM attack
FLA EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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
E. Rodrigues
#17 · C · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:44 on ice · +1
S. Bennett
#9 · C · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:26 on ice · +1
M. Benning
#20 · D · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 15:43 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Mar 19
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:55 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 offers no clear answer: a 2.5–2.7 goal spread with Edmonton at 54% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as mathematical forecasting gets.

Recent form tilts Edmonton's way. The Oilers have won their last 10 games at a 6–3–1 pace, while Florida sits at -7 goal differential over the same stretch. That's not fluky shorthandedness—the Panthers are being outplayed.

The underlying data supports Edmonton's edge. At 5v5, the Oilers control expected goals at 52.0% to Florida's 49.0%, a gap that compounds across a 60-minute game. Florida leads in Corsi percentage (52.0% to 50.0%), but shot volume is a noisy metric; where the puck is expected to go—Edmonton's true territory advantage—matters more.

One reason to trust Edmonton's regression math: a PDO of 0.982 is running cold. A team this dominant in underlying play rate shouldn't be this cool, and the gap tightens over time.

The goaltending situation cuts both ways. Calvin Ingram starts a back-to-back for Florida; Stuart Bobrovsky does the same for Edmonton. Both coaches are banking on their starter earning the nod again. That's grit or desperation, depending on depth conviction.

Brad Marchand remains out for Florida (13 days missed, injury likely), erasing a 17-goal scorer. Sam Bennett (0.97 expected goals per 60, 18 goals) shoulders the scoring load. He's shot well at 13.1%, but one scorer doesn't swing a matchup.

Edmonton counters with firepower. Zach Hyman (1.23 xG/60, 14 goals) is relentless, and Connor McDavid (25 goals, 33 assists) warps every line he touches. McDavid's 13.7% shooting rate is elite and sustainable—he's a living exception to regression theory.

This game rewards execution first. Edmonton owns the play; Florida's path runs through penalties or a hot goalie. Back-to-backs dull both edges, so the winner likely avoids sloppy middle-period sequences. The model calls it a toss—trust the teams to settle it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 54%
54%
EDM
Model favorite
46%
54%
FLA50EDM

EDM by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 2.5–2.7 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
FLA← edge
edge →EDM
49.0%52.0%
52.0%50.0%
2.482.64
2.562.47
1.982.13
2.212.29
0.9890.982

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.982) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
FLA
4-6-0
-7 GD · 1d rest
EDM
6-3-1
+5 GD · 1d rest
0.989
FLA 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 49.0%.
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 49.0%.
  • C. Ingram is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • S. Bobrovsky is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Oilers are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
  • The Panthers are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
back-to-back.773 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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.

EDM
Expected in goal
C. Ingram
back-to-back.900 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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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