Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
Breakdown · VGK at SJS · Preseason

Golden Knights steal one from the Sharks against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Golden Knights stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.22–3.89 and won anyway.

VGK 2 · SJS 1
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 28, 3:43 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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 stole one in the shootout, winning 2-1 despite getting thoroughly outworked. San Jose held 64% of expected goals—this was a heist built on goaltending.

The Sharks controlled the game from start to finish. They held 56% of shot attempts (29–23) and built 3.89 expected goals to Vegas's 2.22. On the surface, San Jose should have won. Instead, C. Hart stopped what the Sharks' offense threw at him.

Hart finished 28 of 29, but the real story is the quality. Vegas's goalie gave up 2.89 more goals than his expected goals suggested. He was perfect on high-danger chances—all 7 of them. San Jose's Y. Askarov played well (22 of 23, 0.957 save percentage), but he faced a team that generated far fewer meaningful looks. San Jose wasted its possession. They went 0 for 7 on high-danger chances. Finishing droughts don't repeat; it was variance, not skill.

M. Misa opened the scoring on the power play at 04:18 of the third, a 14% chance off the rush that beat Hart. Vegas answered at 08:22 when A. Holtz buried another 14% shot from the perimeter, and that tied the game. Nothing separated them after that, so the shootout decided it—a strip-and-chance game where neither goalie folded.

The Sharks dominated transition, especially on the rush. They threw 30 shot attempts from those situations and generated 3.61 expected goals against Vegas in transition alone. That's the specific weakness that cost them: Vegas's gap control broke repeatedly, and Hart had to clean it up every time. It worked once. It rarely works twice.

San Jose underperformed their workload by nearly 3 full goals. Vegas won a game they didn't deserve to win, and the only reason they're taking this one home is Hart.

The goals

  • SJS 0–1, 04:18 of the third on the power play. M. Misa, wrist shot from 9 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past C. Hart. Assists: I. Stenberg, D. Orlov. Win probability moved 27 points.
  • VGK 1–1, 08:22 of the third. A. Holtz, wrist shot from 26 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Assists: T. Laczynski, A. Ginning. Win probability moved 30 points.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Preseason · Sep 22
VGK
2
SJS
1

Golden Knights steal one from the Sharks against the run of play

Chances 2.2 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
2.22
SJS
3.89
36% of the chances64%

The board read VGK 2, SJS 1. The chances read VGK 2.2, SJS 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
−0.2
goals above expected
VGK2.22 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS3.89 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks left 2.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+30
win-probability points
18% → 47% for VGK
SJS 100%the game, start to finish
VGK 100%P1 · P2 · P3
VGKP3 08:22

A. Holtz makes it 1–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P3 04:18SJSM. MisaPP14%0–1
  2. P3 08:22VGKA. Holtz14%1–1
  3. SO 00:00VGKM. SapovalivPP1–1
  4. SO 00:00SJSI. StenbergPP1–1
  5. SO 00:00VGKB. BowmanPP1–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VGK
33 shots
1
Final
77 shots
SJS
44 shots
1
VGK attackSJS attack
VGK SJS Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

33
shots · 1 in
44
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VGKSJS
0 / 3
0.70 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.85 xG
1 / 12
1.18 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.60 xG
0 / 32
0.34 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.43 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Hart
+2.9
VGK · 28/29 · 65:00
Best save · a 41% chance, wrist from 6 ft · P4 04:50
B+
Y. Askarov
+1.2
SJS · 22/23 · 65:00
Best save · a 32% chance, wrist from 19 ft · P3 02:49
Best skater on the ice
A+
SJS
I. Stenberg
L · impact 1.83
22:17
Ice time
0–1
G – A
0.63
Own xG
76%
xG share
Impact · top 4
I. Stenberg1.8A+
M. Misa1.5A+
D. Orlov1.2A+
A. Holtz1.1A
Report card
VGKSJS
OffenseC-A+
DefenseFC+
TransitionFA+
Special teamsCB+
GoaltendingA+B+
DisciplineD-A-
LuckB+D-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why VGK won
  1. 01C. Hart stole it
  2. 02Won against the run of play
  3. 03C. Hart was perfect on high danger
Why SJS lost
  1. 01Cold finishing night
  2. 02Deserved a better fate
  3. 03Wasted the best looks
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights steal one from the Sharks against the run of play

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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 7–5no goals
    2ndshots 6–10no goals
      3rdshots 10–7
      1. 04:18SJSM. Misapower play(I. Stenberg, D. Orlov)0–1

        Wrist shot from 9 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past C. Hart. Win probability moved 27 points.On the ice: J. Trouba, P. Giles, N. Allan, A. Gasseau, C. Wetsch · against T. Laczynski, V. Heinola, A. Holtz, B. Bowman, J. Piiparinen

      2. 08:22VGKA. Holtz(T. Laczynski, A. Ginning)1–1

        Wrist shot from 26 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Win probability moved 30 points.On the ice: J. Rondbjerg, V. Heinola, A. Tuomisto, M. Sapovaliv, M. Gatcomb · against P. Giles, A. Gasseau, E. Pohlkamp, C. Wetsch, P. Sinn

      OTshots 0–7no goals
        SO
        1. 00:00VGKM. Sapovalivpower play1–1
        2. 00:00SJSI. Stenbergpower play1–1
        3. 00:00VGKB. Bowmanpower play1–1

        score reads VGK–SJS

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

        The numbers

        XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
        2.22
        VGK chances
        Goals their shots were worth
        −0.2
        Finishing
        Goals below what those chances were worth
        1.005
        VGK puck luck
        About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
        42.7%
        Shot attempts
        Under half — they were outshot
        Split by club

        Who controlled the game

        2.22Expected goals3.89
        SJS 64% of the chance quality
        23Shots on goal29
        3High-danger chances7
        47All attempts (Corsi)63
        Adjusted for score: VGK 43% · SJS 57%
        Faceoffs · SJS won63%off47%neu27%def
        Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
        How the game was won

        The danger ladder

        shotsgoalsexpected
        High dangerslot & crease
        VGK0 / 3 · 0.70 xG
        SJS0 / 7 · 1.85 xG
        Medium dangermid-range
        VGK1 / 12 · 1.18 xG
        SJS1 / 15 · 1.60 xG
        Low dangerperimeter & point
        VGK0 / 32 · 0.34 xG
        SJS0 / 41 · 0.43 xG

        SJS went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.85 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

        Finishing vs expected

        expectedactual
        VGK
        2 G · 2.22 xG · -0.2
        SJS
        1 G · 3.89 xG · -2.9
        012345

        VGK finished -0.2 against expected, SJS -2.9.

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

        Shot diet

        goalsshots
        VGK
        WRIST1/22
        SLAP0/5
        BACKHAND0/3
        TIP IN0/3
        SNAP0/0
        OTHER0/14
        SJS
        WRIST1/22
        SLAP0/11
        BACKHAND0/5
        TIP IN0/3
        SNAP0/3
        OTHER0/19
        VGK
        SJS
        Off the rush
        1 G on 19
        1.50 xG
        1 G on 30
        3.61 xG
        Off rebounds
        0 G on 1
        0.04 xG
        0 G on 0
        0.00 xG

        Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 1-for-22, SJS 1-for-22.

        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 · 28/29 · .966
        started · 65:00 · win
        +2.9
        saved above expected
        A+
        the night
        Attempts faced
        44
        Avg chance faced
        8.8%
        Stopped vs expected
        0.977 vs 0.912
        Rebounds allowed
        0
        By dangerG/attxGsaved
        High danger0/71.9+1.9
        Medium1/151.6+0.6
        Low0/220.4+0.4
        Shorthanded1/50.5-0.5
        Tips & deflections0/30.5+0.5
        The save
        41% chance stopped, a wrist from 6 ft · P4 04:50
        The one to have back
        14% chance went in, a wrist from 9 ft · P3 04:18

        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

        Y. Askarov
        SJS · 22/23 · .957
        started · 65:00 · OT loss
        +1.2
        saved above expected
        B+
        the night
        Attempts faced
        33
        Avg chance faced
        6.7%
        Stopped vs expected
        0.970 vs 0.933
        Rebounds allowed
        1
        By dangerG/attxGsaved
        High danger0/30.7+0.7
        Medium1/121.2+0.2
        Low0/180.3+0.3
        Tips & deflections0/30.2+0.2
        The save
        32% chance stopped, a wrist from 19 ft · P3 02:49
        The one to have back
        14% chance went in, a wrist from 26 ft · P3 08:22

        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

        Every skater who dressed

        Who played

        Rated on what they produced and how fast

        Best skater on the ice by our rating: I. Stenberg (SJS), 22:17 of ice, 0-1, 76% of the expected goals while he was out.

        VGK18 skaters
        SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
        A. HoltzR19:111-051A
        T. LaczynskiC17:110-154A
        J. RondbjergR18:390-069B
        A. GinningD22:090-124C
        D. CoghlanD17:300-056C
        V. HeinolaD25:140-045C
        J. DaviesD16:530-046C
        A. TuomistoD24:430-043D
        J. DemekC12:130-036D
        M. McLainC9:350-044D
        A. WeiermairC11:450-041D
        M. GatcombC16:530-037D
        M. CatafordC13:590-037D
        J. HallumL17:050-031D
        M. SapovalivC20:470-026F
        J. PiiparinenD20:060-023F
        B. BowmanR17:440-018F
        J. FlemingR9:090-038F
        SJS18 skaters
        SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
        I. StenbergL22:170-176A+
        M. MisaC18:371-056A+
        D. OrlovD19:540-173A+
        A. GasseauC13:460-062A
        L. CagnoniD22:430-073A
        C. GrafR15:300-083A
        A. WennbergC20:450-074B
        E. CardwellR15:490-059B
        N. AllanD19:010-079B
        P. GilesR10:530-068B
        J. TroubaD19:100-069B
        E. PohlkampD22:040-046B
        C. WetschR11:200-062C
        T. ToffoliC16:010-056C
        J. HuntingtonC13:290-045C
        I. ChernyshovL19:070-043C
        F. BystedtC16:580-024D
        P. SinnD19:010-010F

        xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

        Scratched, VGK: A. Pietrangelo, B. McNabb, N. Dowd, M. Stone, W. Karlsson, T. Hertl and 45 more. Scratched, SJS: L. Couture, B. Goodrow, E. Comrie, D. Nurse, A. Nedeljkovic, R. McKeown and 55 more. Referees Corey Syvret and Ben Betker; linesmen Travis Gawryletz and Ben O'Quinn.

        Graded against a league-average game

        Report card

        Seven dimensions · A+ to F
        DimensionVGKSJS
        Offense
        ▸Basis

        VGK Created 2.22 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.70 xG) and 19 rush shots (1.50 xG).

        SJS Created 3.89 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 7 high-danger shots (1.85 xG) and 30 rush shots (3.61 xG).

        C-
        72
        A+
        100
        Defense
        ▸Basis

        VGK Allowed 3.89 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 7 high-danger shots (1.85 xG) and 30 rush shots (3.61 xG).

        SJS Allowed 2.22 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.70 xG) and 19 rush shots (1.50 xG).

        F
        48
        C+
        78
        Transition
        ▸Basis

        VGK Rush shots 19–30, rush xG 1.50–3.61 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

        SJS Rush shots 30–19, rush xG 3.61–1.50 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

        F
        48
        A+
        100
        Special teams
        ▸Basis

        VGK No power-play opportunities to grade.

        SJS 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.48 PP xG.

        C
        75
        B+
        88
        Goaltending
        ▸Basis

        VGK +2.89 goals saved above expected on 29 shots against.

        SJS +1.22 goals saved above expected on 23 shots against.

        A+
        100
        B+
        87
        Discipline
        ▸Basis

        VGK Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 0 for 0 on the other side.

        SJS Took 0 penalties for 0 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

        D-
        60
        A-
        90
        Luck

        Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

        ▸Basis

        VGK Finishing -1.22 goals vs xG plus +2.89 GSAx of save luck = +1.67 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

        SJS Finishing -2.89 goals vs xG plus +1.22 GSAx of save luck = -1.67 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

        B+
        88
        D-
        62
        Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
        What the model flagged
        STRENGTHVGK

        C. Hart stole it

        C. Hart stopped 28 of 29 (0.966) — +2.89 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

        WARNINGVGK

        Rush defense leaked all night

        Gave up 30 rush shots worth 3.61 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

        Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

        SURPRISEVGK

        Won against the run of play

        The Golden Knights took it 2-1 in a shootout with only 36% of expected goals (2.22–3.89).

        STRENGTHSJS

        Dangerous off the rush

        1 goals on 30 rush shots worth 3.61 xG.

        LUCKSJS

        Cold finishing night

        Scored 1 on 3.89 xG — -2.89 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

        WARNINGSJS

        Deserved a better fate

        The Sharks controlled 64% of expected goals (3.89 to 2.22) and still lost — the process was there, the finish wasn't.

        Change nothing structurally — this loss was variance, not process.

        77 shots · press play to watch the game back

        Where the shots came from

        NHL play-by-play coordinates
        VGK
        33 shots
        1
        Final
        77 shots
        SJS
        44 shots
        1
        VGK attackSJS attack
        VGK SJS Goal

        Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

        Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK 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
        I. Stenberg
        #41 · L · SJS
        0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:17 on ice · -1
        A. Ginning
        #73 · D · VGK
        0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:09 on ice · +1
        D. Orlov
        #9 · D · SJS
        0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:54 on ice
        Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
        What the model said beforehand

        Before the game

        Written Tue, Sep 22
        Open the pre-game read
        Written from the numbers

        The read

        Edited for clarity
        Preseason · exhibition

        Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

        ◆ By the ModelSep 21, 11:51 PMEdited 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 a VGK 3.3 - 2.9 SJS game with the Golden Knights at 55% win probability.

        Vegas dominates the underlying play. The Golden Knights own 54.5% xG and 52.3% Corsi to San Jose's 46.5% xG and 47.0% Corsi—a territorial advantage that should favor Vegas possession and shot volume.

        But the Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983, running cold. San Jose sits at 0.998, practically neutral. That gap suggests positive regression is coming for Vegas; the model assumes it won't all arrive tonight, but some will.

        Yaroslav Askarov has been the Sharks' bleeding wound. Over 47 games, he's at -15.8 GSAx—the numbers agree the Sharks' goalie is a leak. Against a Vegas team that drives possession and generates chances, that's structural vulnerability.

        Pavol Regenda leads the Sharks' counterpunch. He's at 1.10 xG/60 with 5G and 1A, including 2 high-danger goals. Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60, 3G 6A, 1 HD goal) anchors the Vegas attack, and the Sharks will direct their shutdown efforts toward containing him.

        Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 HD goal) and Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, 1 HD goal) represent the rest of San Jose's scoring depth. Both operate at expected-goals rates nearly identical to Saad's. Chernyshov shoots at 15.0%, while Hertl sits at 4.3%. If Chernyshov regresses to true talent, that's a margin shrinker.

        The model says the data is in: Vegas is the better team by a wide margin. A PDO bounce should push them across the line.

        Players to Watch

        VGK

        • Brandon Saad — 0.91 xG/60, 3G 6A, 1 HD goal
        • Tomas Hertl — 0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 HD goal

        SJS

        • Pavol Regenda — 1.10 xG/60, 5G 1A, 2 HD goals
        • Igor Chernyshov — 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, 1 HD goal

        Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

        What the model said beforehand

        The model's lean

        VGK 55%
        55%
        VGK
        Model favorite
        55%
        45%
        VGK50SJS

        VGK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VGK 3.3–2.9 SJS; 16% 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 →SJS
        54.5%46.5%
        52.3%47.0%
        3.262.87
        2.713.30
        3.223.04
        2.953.54
        0.9830.998

        VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 0.998) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

        Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
        Form · Last 1
        VGK
        1-0-0
        +2 GD · 2d rest
        SJS
        0-1-0
        -4 GD · 2d rest
        0.983
        VGK PDO
        Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
        0.998
        SJS PDO
        Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
        What decides it

        Keys to the game

        WARNINGSJS

        Yaroslav Askarov has leaked goals all season

        Yaroslav Askarov: -15.8 GSAx over 47 games.

        Shoot from everywhere — volume beats a cold crease.

        TACTICALSJS

        Shutdown Assignment: Sharks

        Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Saad (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

        Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Saad (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

        TACTICALVGK

        Shutdown Assignment: Golden Knights

        Key matchup: Neutralize Pavol Regenda (5G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

        Key matchup: Neutralize Pavol Regenda (5G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

        STRENGTHSJS

        Pavol Regenda drives the Sharks offense

        Pavol Regenda: 5G 1A, 1.10 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.

        Where the edges live
        • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
        • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.3% — expect territorial tilt.
        Regression watch
        • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
        Things to watch
        • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
        • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.3% — expect territorial tilt.
        • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
        Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

        Lineups

        NHL box score
        VGK
        Expected in goal
        A. Hill
        2 days rest.895 last start
        Backup Akira Schmid · -2.1 GSAx this season

        No completed game on file for this club yet.

        SJS
        Expected in goal
        E. Comrie
        2 days rest.875 last start
        Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -15.8 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
        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