Backcheck
Recap · VAN at SJS

Canucks edge the Sharks in a shootout

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

By the ModelJul 12, 11:28 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VAN
Vancouver Canucks
4
Home
SJS
San Jose Sharks
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.48Expected goals3.60
51% share for the better side
41Shot attempts (SOG)32
3High-danger chances8
66Corsi (all attempts)55
Score-adjusted: 56% / 44%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Canucks won 4–3 in a shootout despite the Sharks dominating the underlying metrics. Sharks expected goals (3.60) outpaced Vancouver's (3.48), but Linus Karlsson's shootout goal from the high slot decided it.

The Sharks controlled play — they held 44% of shot attempts (32–41 on goal) and generated 8 high-danger chances to Vancouver's 3. Yet they squandered their opportunities: five rebound chances went unconverted, and they scored just 2 goals on 28 rush chances.

Vancouver's power play was decisive. The Canucks scored twice on 14 power plays (0.81 expected goals), winning the margins where games are decided. In five-on-five play, they were outhit and outchanced, but penalty discipline kept them ahead into overtime.

K. Lankinen (VAN) stopped 29 of 32 with a 0.906 save percentage — 0.60 above expected. Y. Askarov (SJS) was sharp in regulation, saving 38 of 41 (0.927).

  • M. Celebrini (SJS) — 2A in 22:14
  • I. Chernyshov (SJS) — 2G in 17:59
  • F. Hronek (VAN) — 1A in 30:55
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN1 / 3 · 0.80 xG
SJS1 / 8 · 1.62 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN1 / 16 · 1.67 xG
SJS1 / 13 · 1.46 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN1 / 47 · 1.00 xG
SJS1 / 34 · 0.52 xG

VAN went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 1.67 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
4 G · 3.48 xG · +0.5
SJS
3 G · 3.60 xG · -0.6
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. LankinenVAN
+0.6
Y. AskarovSJS
+0.5

VAN finished +0.5 against expected, SJS -0.6 — K. Lankinen (VAN) saved 0.6 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST3/33
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/2
OTHER0/13
SJS
WRIST2/33
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND1/5
SNAP0/0
OTHER0/13
VAN
SJS
Off the rush
1 G on 25 · 1.97 xG
2 G on 28 · 2.63 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4 · 0.62 xG
0 G on 5 · 0.63 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 3-for-33, SJS 2-for-33. SJS scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 22:14 TOI · +2
I. Chernyshov
#92 · L · SJS
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 17:59 TOI · +2
F. Hronek
#17 · D · VAN
0 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 30:55 TOI · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • SJS was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 28 rush chances.
  • SJS created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VAN created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VAN power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 14 PP shots (0.81 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VAN at SJS · 10:00 PM ET

The Sharks are the model's lean over the Canucks — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 12, 11:25 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
SJS
Model favorite
45%
55%
VAN50SJS

SJS by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.42.7 SJS; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

VAN← edge
edge →SJS
44.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
46.0%Corsi%47.0%
2.22xGF / 602.33
2.81xGA / 602.56
1.60Goals for / gm1.99
2.56Goals against / gm2.32
0.974PDO — luck, not skill0.998

SJS holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.974 vs 0.998) says SJS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

San Jose owns this matchup by process, not recent results. The model projects VAN 2.4 - 2.7 SJS, with the Sharks at 55% win probability—a lean built entirely on underlying advantage.

Recent play masks the true picture. San Jose is 5-4-1 in their last 10 but underwater at -8 goal differential. Vancouver is worse: -22 over the same stretch. Both teams' records are misleading.

The real edge lives in 5v5 play. San Jose dominates shot quality at 48.0% xG versus Vancouver's 44.0%. The possession difference is narrower—47.0% Corsi for the Sharks to 46.0% for the Canucks—but consistent. This underlying advantage is what the model is exploiting.

The complication is PDO regression. Vancouver's 0.974 PDO signals they are running cold and due for positive bounce-back; San Jose's 0.998 suggests they are inflated. If the Canucks' finishing cold spell corrects itself and the Sharks' hot shooting regresses toward league average, the model's edge shrinks. The underlying play may assert itself differently than this projection assumes.

Goaltending adds uncertainty. Y. Askarov and N. Tolopilo are each on back-to-backs tonight. Watch for backup starts or diminished performance—a tired starter often leaks a goal, enough to flip a close game.

For Vancouver, Drew O'Connor merits attention: 13 goals, 11 assists, 11.8% shooting rate, and 0.85 xG per 60 minutes. For San Jose, Igor Chernyshov offers the same profile—6 goals, 8 assists, 15.0% shooting, 0.91 xG/60. Both are the kind of high-variance threats that can swing a tight matchup in a single shift.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters