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

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.
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.
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.
Golden Knights steal one from the Sharks against the run of play
The Sharks deserved better.
The board read VGK 2, SJS 1. The chances read VGK 2.2, SJS 3.9.
The Sharks left 2.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.
A. Holtz makes it 1–1.
Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.
The Sharks went 0 for 7 from the slot.
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 breakdownWrist 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
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
score reads VGK–SJS
SJS went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.85 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.
VGK finished -0.2 against expected, SJS -2.9.
Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 1-for-22, SJS 1-for-22.
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 →
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+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5
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.
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. HoltzR | 19:11 | 1-0 | 4 | 0.27 | 51 | 0/0 | 1.15 | 3.60 | A |
| T. LaczynskiC | 17:11 | 0-1 | 3 | 0.09 | 54 | 0/0 | 1.06 | 3.69 | A |
| J. RondbjergR | 18:39 | 0-0 | 4 | 0.47 | 69 | 0/0 | 0.63 | 2.03 | B |
| A. GinningD | 22:09 | 0-1 | 0 | 0.00 | 24 | 0/0 | 0.34 | 0.92 | C |
| D. CoghlanD | 17:30 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.06 | 56 | 0/0 | 0.26 | 0.90 | C |
| V. HeinolaD | 25:14 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.37 | 45 | 0/0 | 0.20 | 0.48 | C |
| J. DaviesD | 16:53 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.01 | 46 | 0/0 | 0.15 | 0.54 | C |
| A. TuomistoD | 24:43 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 43 | 0/0 | 0.12 | 0.29 | D |
| J. DemekC | 12:13 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.27 | 36 | 0/0 | 0.07 | 0.35 | D |
| M. McLainC | 9:35 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 44 | 0/0 | -0.01 | -0.03 | D |
| A. WeiermairC | 11:45 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.17 | 41 | 0/0 | -0.02 | -0.09 | D |
| M. GatcombC | 16:53 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.03 | 37 | 0/0 | -0.10 | -0.36 | D |
| M. CatafordC | 13:59 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.06 | 37 | 0/0 | -0.12 | -0.52 | D |
| J. HallumL | 17:05 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.19 | 31 | 0/0 | -0.13 | -0.47 | D |
| M. SapovalivC | 20:47 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.01 | 26 | 0/0 | -0.38 | -1.08 | F |
| J. PiiparinenD | 20:06 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.03 | 23 | 0/0 | -0.39 | -1.17 | F |
| B. BowmanR | 17:44 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.14 | 18 | 0/0 | -0.47 | -1.58 | F |
| J. FlemingR | 9:09 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.06 | 38 | 0/2 | -0.37 | -2.40 | F |
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I. StenbergL | 22:17 | 0-1 | 4 | 0.63 | 76 | 0/0 | 1.83 | 4.93 | A+ |
| M. MisaC | 18:37 | 1-0 | 4 | 0.83 | 56 | 0/0 | 1.50 | 4.82 | A+ |
| D. OrlovD | 19:54 | 0-1 | 2 | 0.05 | 73 | 0/0 | 1.20 | 3.63 | A+ |
| A. GasseauC | 13:46 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.52 | 62 | 1/0 | 0.74 | 3.23 | A |
| L. CagnoniD | 22:43 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.15 | 73 | 0/0 | 0.81 | 2.14 | A |
| C. GrafR | 15:30 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.29 | 83 | 0/0 | 0.69 | 2.67 | A |
| A. WennbergC | 20:45 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.03 | 74 | 0/0 | 0.57 | 1.64 | B |
| E. CardwellR | 15:49 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.41 | 59 | 0/0 | 0.47 | 1.80 | B |
| N. AllanD | 19:01 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.03 | 79 | 0/0 | 0.43 | 1.35 | B |
| P. GilesR | 10:53 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.07 | 68 | 0/0 | 0.30 | 1.66 | B |
| J. TroubaD | 19:10 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.07 | 69 | 0/0 | 0.33 | 1.04 | B |
| E. PohlkampD | 22:04 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.34 | 46 | 0/0 | 0.35 | 0.94 | B |
| C. WetschR | 11:20 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 62 | 1/0 | 0.26 | 1.38 | C |
| T. ToffoliC | 16:01 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.04 | 56 | 0/0 | 0.26 | 0.95 | C |
| J. HuntingtonC | 13:29 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.14 | 45 | 0/0 | 0.18 | 0.79 | C |
| I. ChernyshovL | 19:07 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.21 | 43 | 0/0 | 0.12 | 0.39 | C |
| F. BystedtC | 16:58 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.08 | 24 | 0/0 | -0.33 | -1.15 | D |
| P. SinnD | 19:01 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 10 | 0/0 | -0.44 | -1.39 | F |
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.
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).
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).
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).
VGK No power-play opportunities to grade.
SJS 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.48 PP xG.
VGK +2.89 goals saved above expected on 29 shots against.
SJS +1.22 goals saved above expected on 23 shots against.
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.
Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral
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.
C. Hart stopped 28 of 29 (0.966) — +2.89 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.
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.
The Golden Knights took it 2-1 in a shootout with only 36% of expected goals (2.22–3.89).
1 goals on 30 rush shots worth 3.61 xG.
Scored 1 on 3.89 xG — -2.89 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.
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.
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.
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.
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.
VGK
SJS
Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.
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.
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.
Yaroslav Askarov: -15.8 GSAx over 47 games.
Shoot from everywhere — volume beats a cold crease.
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)
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)
Pavol Regenda: 5G 1A, 1.10 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.
No completed game on file for this club yet.
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.