Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Tue, Apr 7 · the slate
Breakdown · VGK at VAN

Golden Knights run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Apr 7
VGKVegas Golden Knights2VANVancouver Canucks1
The verdict · earned

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

VGK 2 · VAN 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:49 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

Vegas's 70% share of expected goals (3.93–1.69) tells the real story: the Golden Knights didn't edge Vancouver by one goal—they ran them off the ice. The Canucks won just 28% of shot attempts (11–29) and generated only 1.69 xG. High-danger chances went 1–4 in Vegas's favor.

N. Tolopilo (VAN) was the only reason the score stayed competitive. He saved 1.93 goals above expected (27/29, 0.931 SV%), absorbing everything Vegas threw at net. C. Hart (VGK) also outperformed (+0.69 vs expected, 10/11, 0.909 SV%), though Vegas's dominance didn't hinge on goaltending.

Vegas's shot quality separated them. The Golden Knights generated 0.061 expected goals per attempt; Vancouver, 0.039. On the rush, Vegas converted twice on 27 chances. In the red zone, both teams created rebound opportunities (VGK: 4, VAN: 3) but neither converted second chances—a wash in finish, not in dominance.

Cole Smith's snap shot from the high slot (P3, 12:13) stood as the game-winner. It embodied the pattern: Vegas's chances were sharper and harder to stop. B. McNabb (1G, 21:23) and S. Theodore (1A, 20:37) led the charge. T. Blueger (1A, 14:38) was Vancouver's most effective.

The underlying numbers didn't just back Vegas's result—they made it look conservative. The Golden Knights controlled the game start to finish, converted on moments that mattered, and left Vancouver with nowhere to go.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 7
VGK
2
VAN
1

Golden Knights run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.9 – 1.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
3.93
VAN
1.69
70% of the chances30%

The board read VGK 2, VAN 1. The chances read VGK 3.9, VAN 1.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
−1.9
goals above expected
VGK3.93 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN1.69 expected · 1 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
  1. P2 12:50VANM. Sasson0–1
  2. P2 15:46VGKB. McNabb1–1
  3. P3 12:13VGKC. Smith2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VGK
47 shots
2
Final
70 shots
VAN
23 shots
1
VGK attackVAN attack
VGK VAN Goal
47
shots · 2 in
23
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VGKVAN
0 / 4
0.93 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.18 xG
1 / 23
2.56 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.23 xG
1 / 37
0.44 xG
Low
1 / 31
0.28 xG

High-danger looks: VGK 0 of 4, VAN 0 of 1.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
N. Tolopilo
+1.9
VAN · 27/29
B
C. Hart
+0.7
VGK · 10/11
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 11–2no goals
    2ndshots 12–5
    1. 12:50VANM. Sasson(T. Blueger, L. Karlsson)0–1
    2. 15:46VGKB. McNabb(S. Theodore, B. Saad)1–1
    3rdshots 6–4
    1. 12:13VGKC. Smith(N. Dowd)2–1

    score reads VGK–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.93
    VGK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.9
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.008
    VGK puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    59.8%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.93Expected goals1.69
    VGK 70% of the chance quality
    29Shots on goal11
    4High-danger chances1
    64All attempts (Corsi)43
    Adjusted for score: VGK 59% · VAN 41%
    Faceoffs · VAN won41%off36%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VGK0 / 4 · 0.93 xG
    VAN0 / 1 · 0.18 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VGK1 / 23 · 2.56 xG
    VAN0 / 11 · 1.23 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VGK1 / 37 · 0.44 xG
    VAN1 / 31 · 0.28 xG

    VGK went 1-for-23 from medium danger on 2.56 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VGK
    2 G · 3.93 xG · -1.9
    VAN
    1 G · 1.69 xG · -0.7
    012345

    VGK finished -1.9 against expected, VAN -0.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VGK
    WRIST0/11
    SNAP2/20
    SLAP0/7
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/17
    VAN
    WRIST0/14
    SNAP1/1
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/20
    VGK
    VAN
    Off the rush
    2 G on 27
    2.24 xG
    1 G on 14
    1.03 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.81 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.48 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 0-for-11, VAN 0-for-14. VGK 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
    C. Hart
    VGK · 10/11 · .909
    +0.7
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium0/111.2+1.2
    Low1/310.3-0.7

    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 · 27/29 · .931
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium1/232.6+1.6
    Low1/370.4-0.6

    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

    70 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    VGK
    47 shots
    2
    Final
    70 shots
    VAN
    23 shots
    1
    VGK attackVAN attack
    VGK VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK 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
    B. McNabb
    #3 · D · VGK
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 21:23 on ice · +2
    S. Theodore
    #27 · D · VGK
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:37 on ice · +2
    T. Blueger
    #53 · C · VAN
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 14:38 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Apr 7
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:47 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 Vegas at 57% win probability, with a projected score of 2.7–2.3 in VGK's favor. This edge rests on territorial dominance that hasn't yet fully translated to the scoreboard.

    Vegas is the form team. They've gone 4-4-2 in their last 10, while Vancouver sits underwater at -19 goal differential over the same stretch. More importantly, the underlying play is a rout: Vegas dominates at 54.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi, suggesting the Golden Knights should own the game's flow.

    But here's the regression watch. Both teams are running cold on PDO—Vegas at 0.983, Vancouver at 0.974—which means both are due for positive regression. For a Vegas team with superior xG generation, PDO regression works as a tailwind. For Vancouver, it's a lifeline that doesn't fully close the talent gap.

    The player watch has caveats. Brandon Saad is likely out for Vegas, undercutting the Golden Knights' most efficient scorer (0.91 xG/60, 3G 6A, 1 hard-chance goal, 4.1% shooting). That leaves Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 hard-chance goal, 4.3% shooting) as the offensive centerpiece.

    Vancouver's Filip Chytil hasn't played in 64 days and is likely out as well, removing a scorer who'd been hot (1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 15.0% shooting). Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 hard-chance goals, 11.8% shooting) carries the secondary load, but secondary doesn't win when you're already down in 5v5 generation.

    Tactically, neither team generates from hard chances or rebounds—both sit at 0% in each category—which means the game tilts toward volume and luck. Vegas's defensive weak link is Rasmus Andersson; Vancouver's is Victor Mancini. With the underlying edges held by Vegas and both teams primed for positive PDO regression, the Golden Knights' 57% lean is deserved.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 57%
    57%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    57%
    43%
    VGK50VAN

    VGK by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VGK 2.7–2.3 VAN; 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
    VGK← edge
    edge →VAN
    54.0%44.0%
    52.0%46.0%
    2.522.22
    2.112.81
    2.121.60
    2.102.56
    0.9830.974

    VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 0.974) says VGK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    VGK
    4-4-2
    -4 GD · 2d rest
    VAN
    2-8-0
    -19 GD · 3d rest
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Golden Knights are the hotter team by points pace (4-4-2 in their last 10).
    • The Canucks are underwater at -19 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
    VGK
    Expected in goal
    C. Hart
    2 days rest.969 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    VAN
    Expected in goal
    N. Tolopilo
    3 days rest.750 last start
    Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
    VGK
    Brandon Saad3G 6A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
    Tomas Hertl5G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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