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

Oilers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

VAN 1 · EDM 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:32 PMxG: 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

The Oilers' 6-1 victory looked more dominant than the underlying xG: Edmonton held 76% of expected goals (4.60–1.47), which is elite but not historically transcendent. K. Lankinen's 0.829 save percentage cost Vancouver 1.40 goals—a stunning underperformance that magnified the final margin. Edmonton's rush game (five goals on 39 chances) and power play (three on 14 shots) sealed the result.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 16
VAN
1
EDM
6

Oilers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.5 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
1.47
EDM
4.60
24% of the chances76%

The board read VAN 1, EDM 6. The chances read VAN 1.5, EDM 4.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+1.4
goals above expected
EDM4.60 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN1.47 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. P1 01:58EDMJ. Samanski0–1
  2. P1 06:48EDMM. Savoie0–2
  3. P1 12:10VANT. Mueller1–2
  4. P1 14:35EDMM. SavoiePP1–3
  5. P1 19:02EDMM. SavoiePP1–4
  6. P2 16:46EDMR. Nugent-HopkinsPP1–5
  7. P3 08:20EDMC. Dach1–6
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
18 shots
1
Final
72 shots
EDM
54 shots
6
VAN attackEDM attack
VAN EDM Goal
18
shots · 1 in
54
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANEDM
1 / 3
0.58 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.90 xG
0 / 5
0.64 xG
Medium
5 / 28
3.11 xG
0 / 21
0.25 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.60 xG

High-danger looks: VAN 1 of 3, EDM 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
C. Ingram
+0.5
EDM · 11/12
D-
K. Lankinen
−1.4
VAN · 29/35
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers 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 5–13
  1. 01:58EDMJ. Samanski(C. Dach, E. Bouchard)0–1
  2. 06:48EDMM. Savoie(E. Bouchard, C. McDavid)0–2
  3. 12:10VANT. Mueller(C. Douglas, K. Lankinen)1–2
  4. 14:35EDMM. Savoiepower play(C. McDavid)1–3
  5. 19:02EDMM. Savoiepower play(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)1–4
2ndshots 3–14
  1. 16:46EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(Z. Hyman, C. McDavid)1–5
3rdshots 4–8
  1. 08:20EDMC. Dach(C. Murphy, D. Nurse)1–6

score reads VAN–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.60
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.047
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
71.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.47Expected goals4.60
EDM 76% of the chance quality
12Shots on goal35
3High-danger chances4
29All attempts (Corsi)74
Adjusted for score: VAN 34% · EDM 66%
Faceoffs · EDM won72%off73%neu42%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN1 / 3 · 0.58 xG
EDM1 / 4 · 0.90 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN0 / 5 · 0.64 xG
EDM5 / 28 · 3.11 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 21 · 0.25 xG
EDM0 / 42 · 0.60 xG

EDM went 5-for-28 from medium danger on 3.11 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
1 G · 1.47 xG · -0.5
EDM
6 G · 4.60 xG · +1.4
01234567

VAN finished -0.5 against expected, EDM +1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST1/8
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/3
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/11
EDM
WRIST2/30
TIP IN0/6
SNAP3/5
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND0/4
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT1/1
OTHER0/20
VAN
EDM
Off the rush
1 G on 11
0.87 xG
5 G on 39
3.82 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.37 xG
1 G on 4
0.37 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 1-for-8, EDM 2-for-30. EDM scored 5 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
K. Lankinen
VAN · 29/35 · .829
-1.4
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium5/283.1-1.9
Low0/420.6+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

C. Ingram
EDM · 11/12 · .917
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.6-0.4
Medium0/50.6+0.6
Low0/210.3+0.3

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

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
18 shots
1
Final
72 shots
EDM
54 shots
6
VAN attackEDM attack
VAN EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
0 G · 4 A · 3 SOG · 18:16 on ice · +2
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 21:52 on ice · +3
M. Savoie
#22 · C · EDM
3 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 15:59 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:59 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

Edmonton's win probability sits at 59% in a projected 2.3–2.9 game. The edge is real but thin, built on dominant underlying play offset by cold luck that's due to regress for both teams.

The Oilers carry stronger form. They've gone 6-2-2 over their last 10, running at a pace that shames Vancouver's -11 goal differential over the same stretch. Edmonton controls 5v5 play decisively: 52.0% expected goals and 50.0% Corsi against Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% shot share. Territory and chances favor Edmonton by a clear margin.

The complication is PDO. Both teams are running ice-cold. Vancouver sits at 0.974, Edmonton at 0.982—figures that will necessarily regress upward. The Oilers own the underlying play, so they'll collect their due when variance normalizes. The Canucks are the vulnerable party. They're only competitive if their luck turns around while Edmonton's stays south.

K. Lankinen bears watching on a back-to-back. Monitor for a backup start or a starter running on fumes.

Zach Hyman is Edmonton's engine at 1.23 xG/60, with 14 goals and 13 assists. Connor McDavid operates at a lower per-60 rate of 0.92 xG but accumulates 25 goals and 33 assists—dominance through system efficiency rather than volume alone. For Vancouver, Drew O'Connor's 11.8% shooting rate matters when paired with 13 goals across a 0.85 xG/60 output. Filip Chytil, generating 1.03 xG/60, hasn't played in 73 days, making him a question mark.

Defensively, Victor Mancini represents Vancouver's weak link; Jake Walman fills that role for Edmonton. Both record 0% high-danger and rebound goal rates, an oddity that flags either exceptional discipline or fragility in scoring depth when primary chances tighten.

The model leans Oilers. Edmonton has earned it through possession dominance, with the added buffer of positive PDO regression on their side.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 59%
59%
EDM
Model favorite
41%
59%
VAN50EDM

EDM by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.3–2.9 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
VAN← edge
edge →EDM
44.0%52.0%
46.0%50.0%
2.222.64
2.812.47
1.602.13
2.562.29
0.9740.982

EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 0.982) says EDM has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
VAN
4-6-0
-11 GD · 1d rest
EDM
6-2-2
+7 GD · 2d rest
0.974
VAN 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 44.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Oilers are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
  • The Canucks are underwater at -11 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
VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
back-to-back.912 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
2 days rest.969 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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
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
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