Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
Breakdown · EDM at SJS

Oilers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 5 · SJS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:57 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

Edmonton's 5–2 victory obscured how thoroughly the Oilers dominated. The scoreline suggests a blowout, but the underlying numbers reveal something sharper: Edmonton outfinished San Jose by 1.78 goals, converting elite chances while the Sharks' goaltending faltered under pressure.

Dominance on the underlying metrics. Edmonton controlled 60% of expected goals (3.22–2.14), a commanding advantage built on 26 shots to San Jose's 14 at even strength. San Jose held just 35% of shot attempts, unable to sustain any meaningful possession. High-danger chances went 5–2 to Edmonton, a gap that foreshadowed the final margin.

Where the goals came from. Edmonton's power play proved lethal—three goals on eight shots (0.64 xG), an execution rate that accounted for the entire spread. At even strength, the game was closer, but the Oilers' shot volume and quality prevailed. A. Nedeljkovic (San Jose) allowed 1.78 goals more than expected on 21–26 saves, bearing the brunt of Edmonton's elite finishing.

The turning point. Connor McDavid's wrist shot from the doorstep at 14:13 of the second period gave Edmonton momentum they never relinquished.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 8
EDM
5
SJS
2

Oilers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.2 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
3.22
SJS
2.14
60% of the chances40%

The board read EDM 5, SJS 2. The chances read EDM 3.2, SJS 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+1.8
goals above expected
EDM3.22 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS2.14 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Oilers scored 1.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:27SJSM. CelebriniPP0–1
  2. P1 06:18EDMC. McDavidPP1–1
  3. P1 18:38EDMV. PodkolzinPP2–1
  4. P2 03:33EDMJ. RoslovicPP3–1
  5. P2 04:37SJSK. Sherwood3–2
  6. P2 05:53EDMC. McDavid4–2
  7. P2 14:13EDMC. McDavid5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
41 shots
5
Final
69 shots
SJS
28 shots
2
EDM attackSJS attack
EDM SJS Goal
41
shots · 5 in
28
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMSJS
1 / 5
1.10 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.43 xG
4 / 17
1.72 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.50 xG
0 / 36
0.41 xG
Low
1 / 26
0.21 xG

High-danger looks: EDM 1 of 5, SJS 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
T. Jarry
+2.1
EDM · 4/4
C
C. Ingram
+0.1
EDM · 8/10
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Sharks 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 8–3
  1. 04:27SJSM. Celebrinipower play(D. Orlov, W. Smith)0–1
  2. 06:18EDMC. McDavidpower play(E. Bouchard, V. Podkolzin)1–1
  3. 18:38EDMV. Podkolzinpower play(R. Nugent-Hopkins, C. McDavid)2–1
2ndshots 11–7
  1. 03:33EDMJ. Roslovicpower play(C. McDavid)3–1
  2. 04:37SJSK. Sherwood(A. Wennberg, W. Eklund)3–2
  3. 05:53EDMC. McDavid(E. Bouchard, M. Ekholm)4–2
  4. 14:13EDMC. McDavid(J. Roslovic)5–2
3rdshots 7–4no goals

    score reads EDM–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.22
    EDM chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.8
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.037
    EDM puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    58.6%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.22Expected goals2.14
    EDM 60% of the chance quality
    26Shots on goal14
    5High-danger chances2
    58All attempts (Corsi)41
    Adjusted for score: EDM 53% · SJS 47%
    Faceoffs · SJS won39%off53%neu67%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    EDM1 / 5 · 1.10 xG
    SJS0 / 2 · 0.43 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    EDM4 / 17 · 1.72 xG
    SJS1 / 13 · 1.50 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    EDM0 / 36 · 0.41 xG
    SJS1 / 26 · 0.21 xG

    EDM went 4-for-17 from medium danger on 1.72 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    EDM
    5 G · 3.22 xG · +1.8
    SJS
    2 G · 2.14 xG · -0.1
    0123456

    EDM finished +1.8 against expected, SJS -0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    EDM
    WRIST2/29
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN1/4
    BACKHAND1/1
    SNAP0/0
    POKE1/1
    OTHER0/17
    SJS
    WRIST1/17
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN1/5
    BACKHAND0/1
    SNAP0/2
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/13
    EDM
    SJS
    Off the rush
    4 G on 23
    2.25 xG
    2 G on 19
    1.75 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 2
    0.30 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.12 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 2-for-29, SJS 1-for-17. EDM 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
    T. Jarry
    EDM · 4/4 · 1.000
    +2.1
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium1/131.5+0.5
    Low1/260.2-0.8

    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 · 8/10 · .800
    +0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium1/131.5+0.5
    Low1/260.2-0.8

    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

    A. Nedeljkovic
    SJS · 21/26 · .808
    -1.8
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.1+0.1
    Medium4/171.7-2.3
    Low0/360.4+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

    69 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    EDM
    41 shots
    5
    Final
    69 shots
    SJS
    28 shots
    2
    EDM attackSJS attack
    EDM SJS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, SJS 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
    C. McDavid
    #97 · C · EDM
    3 G · 2 A · 8 SOG · 21:10 on ice · +2
    E. Bouchard
    #2 · D · EDM
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:32 on ice · +1
    V. Podkolzin
    #92 · R · EDM
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:48 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Apr 8
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:55 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 pregame model sees EDM at 2.6 expected goals, SJS at 2.5, and the Oilers at precisely 51% win probability. That's as close to a true coin flip as projection gets.

    Edmonton owns the underlying play. At 52.0% 5v5 xG share and 50.0% Corsi%, the Oilers control territory consistently. San Jose's -8 goal differential over their last 10 games reflects the opposite: a team losing almost every edge. Yet the Sharks' 0.998 PDO suggests they've benefited from bounces, while Edmonton's 0.982 PDO indicates they've been running cold and are due for positive regression.

    Rest provides structural advantage. The Oilers arrive on three days' rest; the Sharks on one. In a coin flip, that compounds.

    A. Nedeljkovic starts on back-to-back duty for San Jose. Fatigue could expose the Sharks' defense to Edmonton's xG advantage.

    Connor McDavid anchors the Edmonton case. At 25 goals and 33 assists with 5 high-danger chances, he plays a different tier than any Shark. Zach Hyman has been Edmonton's forward engine, generating 1.23 xG/60 and 14 goals on just 13.0% shooting—underperformance that suggests regression is near. Pavol Regenda (1.10 xG/60, 5 goals) and Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6 goals, 15.0% shooting) lead San Jose's offense, though Chernyshov's defensive positioning has been exposed. Jake Walman's deployment on Edmonton's blue line shapes their vulnerabilities.

    Both teams record 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, removing secondary-scoring variance from the equation. The team that wins the xG battle and converts at league average wins the game. Edmonton should command the former; possession suggests it will command both.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    EDM 51%
    51%
    EDM
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    EDM50SJS

    EDM by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.5 SJS; 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
    EDM← edge
    edge →SJS
    52.0%48.0%
    50.0%47.0%
    2.642.33
    2.472.56
    2.131.99
    2.292.32
    0.9820.998

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    EDM
    7-3-0
    +4 GD · 3d rest
    SJS
    5-4-1
    -8 GD · 1d rest
    0.982
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    SJS 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.
    • A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Sharks are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Oilers have 2 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    EDM
    Expected in goal
    C. Ingram
    3 days rest.848 last start
    Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    SJS
    Expected in goal
    A. Nedeljkovic
    back-to-back.931 last start
    Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next