Sharks hold off the Blues
The Sharks earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The underlying story
The Sharks held off the Blues 5–4 despite matching them in rush goals: each team scored four on identical 27-chance rushes. The separation came via San Jose's power play efficiency—3 PPG on 1.05 xG versus 2 PPG on 0.49 xG—and their 57% xG share (3.79–2.87), which converted a competitive game into a one-goal win.
High-danger chances favored San Jose 6–4, reflecting their ability to generate scoring opportunities from the most dangerous areas. Both teams significantly overperformed their expected goals—San Jose by 1.21, St. Louis by 1.13—indicating that variance and shot execution played outsized roles in deciding the game.
Adam Gaudette's wrist shot from the top of the circles (P3, 19:38) proved decisive. Y. Askarov stopped 22 of 26 shots (0.846 SV%) to keep San Jose in control, while J. Hofer's 24 saves on 29 shots (0.828 SV%) underperformed expected save rate by 1.21 goals.
The danger ladder
STL went 2-for-36 from low danger on 0.53 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.
Finishing vs expected
STL finished +1.1 against expected, SJS +1.2 — J. Hofer (STL) allowed 1.2 more goals than expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 3-for-27, SJS 4-for-22. STL scored 4 of theirs off the rush.
- J. Hofer (STL) gave up 1.2 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
- STL scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
- SJS was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 27 rush chances.
- STL was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 27 rush chances.
- SJS created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- STL created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- SJS power play was dominant — 3 PPG on 7 PP shots (1.05 xG).
- STL power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 7 PP shots (0.49 xG).