Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Thu, Sep 24 · the slate
Breakdown · EDM at VAN · Preseason

Oilers steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

FinalThu, Sep 24
EDMEdmonton Oilers2VANVancouver Canucks1
The verdict · stolen

The Oilers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.19–3.19 and won anyway.

EDM 2 · VAN 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 26, 1:17 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

Edmonton scored twice early, on the rush and off a rebound, and held on to win 2–1. The Canucks pressed back with a power-play goal, but it wasn't enough. This game belonged to T. Jarry.

The numbers reveal a heist. Vancouver controlled the play, generating 59% of the expected-goal share at even strength. They took 55% of shot attempts and created a 3.19–2.19 expected-goal advantage. Jarry stole anyway.

He stopped 2.19 goals above expected while making 25 saves on 26 shots. N. Tolopilo made 12 saves on 14 shots. C. Driedger made all seven he faced.

The goals told the story. I. Howard snapped one off the rush early in the first, a 32-footer with an 8% chance of going in. Q. Hutson converted a rebound in the second, a 14% chance turned into a goal. L. Karlsson answered on the power play with a snap shot from the slot that carried a 32% chance — the one time Vancouver's higher-quality looks connected.

Edmonton's transition game — their willingness to attack off the rush — created the mismatches that Jarry capitalized on. Vancouver owned the perimeter and the quality chances, but Edmonton stole this one anyway.

The goals

  • EDM 1–0, 03:58 of the first. I. Howard, snap shot from 32 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past N. Tolopilo. Assists: T. Cibulka. 9 seconds after a VAN faceoff win by M. Rossi. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • EDM 2–0, 04:28 of the second. Q. Hutson, wrist shot from 8 feet, a 14% chance by the model (a rebound), past N. Tolopilo. Assists: V. Marjala, I. Howard. 3 seconds after an EDM shot by V. Marjala. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • VAN 2–1, 06:01 of the second on the power play. L. Karlsson, snap shot from 4 feet, a 32% chance by the model (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Assists: Z. Buium, J. Lekkerimäki. Win probability moved 16 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 · Preseason · Sep 24
EDM
2
VAN
1

Oilers steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

Chances 2.2 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
2.19
VAN
3.19
41% of the chances59%

The board read EDM 2, VAN 1. The chances read EDM 2.2, VAN 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−0.2
goals above expected
EDM2.19 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN3.19 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 2.2 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+16
win-probability points
17% → 33% for VAN
VAN 100%the game, start to finish
EDM 100%P1 · P2 · P3
VANP2 06:01 · PP

L. Karlsson makes it 2–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:58EDMI. Howard8%1–0
  2. P2 04:28EDMQ. Hutson14%2–0
  3. P2 06:01VANL. KarlssonPP32%2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
30 shots
2
Final
68 shots
VAN
38 shots
1
EDM attackVAN attack
EDM VAN Goal
30
shots · 2 in
38
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMVAN
0 / 2
0.38 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.70 xG
2 / 17
1.69 xG
Medium
0 / 20
2.13 xG
0 / 18
0.12 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.36 xG

High-danger looks: EDM 0 of 2, VAN 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
T. Jarry
+2.2
EDM · 25/26 · 60:00
Best save · a 20% chance, snap from 22 ft · P2 18:34
B+
C. Driedger
+1.0
VAN · 7/7 · 18:28 · in relief
Best save · a 19% chance, wrist from 10 ft · P3 13:29
+1 more on the full breakdown
Best skater on the ice
A+
EDM
I. Howard
L · impact 1.96
17:59
Ice time
1–1
G – A
0.38
Own xG
43%
xG share
Impact · top 4
I. Howard2.0A+
L. Karlsson1.5A+
J. DeBrusk1.4A+
T. Cibulka1.2A
Report card
EDMVAN
OffenseC-B
DefenseDC+
TransitionC-C+
Special teamsFB-
GoaltendingA+C+
DisciplineDB
LuckA-F
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why EDM won
  1. 01T. Jarry stole it
  2. 02Won against the run of play
  3. 03Dangerous off the rush
Why VAN lost
  1. 01Cold finishing night
  2. 02Deserved a better fate
  3. 03Rush defense leaked all night
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers steal one from the Canucks 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 5–7
  1. 03:58EDMI. Howard(T. Cibulka)1–0

    Snap shot from 32 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past N. Tolopilo. 9s after a VAN faceoff win by M. Rossi. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: A. Raty, E. Tralmaks, V. Marjala, D. Carfagna, A. Leppanen · against F. Hronek, F. Chytil, D. O'Connor, J. Lekkerimäki, Z. Buium

2ndshots 9–10
  1. 04:28EDMQ. Hutson(V. Marjala, I. Howard)2–0

    Wrist shot from 8 feet, a 14% chance (a rebound), past N. Tolopilo. 3s after an EDM shot by V. Marjala. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: R. Stillman, T. Emberson, A. Raty, V. Marjala, W. Nicholl · against B. Gallagher, F. Hronek, P. Cotter, L. Ohgren, Z. Buium

  2. 06:01VANL. Karlssonpower play(Z. Buium, J. Lekkerimäki)2–1

    Snap shot from 4 feet, a 32% chance (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: L. Schenn, B. Gallagher, J. Oleksiak, P. Cotter, D. O'Connor · against S. Stastney, W. Nicholl, D. Lewandowski, D. Carfagna, R. Berzkalns

3rdshots 7–9no goals

    score reads EDM–VAN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.19
    EDM chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.036
    EDM puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    39.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.19Expected goals3.19
    VAN 59% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal26
    2High-danger chances3
    37All attempts (Corsi)57
    Adjusted for score: EDM 36% · VAN 64%
    Faceoffs · VAN won80%off67%neu55%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    EDM0 / 2 · 0.38 xG
    VAN1 / 3 · 0.70 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    EDM2 / 17 · 1.69 xG
    VAN0 / 20 · 2.13 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    EDM0 / 18 · 0.12 xG
    VAN0 / 34 · 0.36 xG

    VAN went 0-for-20 from medium danger on 2.13 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    EDM
    2 G · 2.19 xG · -0.2
    VAN
    1 G · 3.19 xG · -2.2
    01234

    EDM finished -0.2 against expected, VAN -2.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    EDM
    WRIST1/15
    SNAP1/9
    TIP IN0/3
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BACKHAND0/1
    OTHER0/7
    VAN
    WRIST0/22
    SNAP1/2
    TIP IN0/7
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    OTHER0/19
    EDM
    VAN
    Off the rush
    1 G on 20
    1.78 xG
    1 G on 22
    2.06 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 1
    0.14 xG
    0 G on 6
    0.63 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 1-for-15, VAN 0-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
    T. Jarry
    EDM · 25/26 · .962
    started · 60:00 · win
    +2.2
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    Attempts faced
    38
    Avg chance faced
    8.4%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.974 vs 0.916
    Rebounds allowed
    6
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.7-0.3
    Medium0/202.1+2.1
    Low0/150.4+0.4
    Shorthanded1/70.8-0.2
    Tips & deflections0/110.7+0.7
    The save
    20% chance stopped, a snap from 22 ft · P2 18:34
    The one to have back
    32% chance went in, a snap from 4 ft · P2 06:01

    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. Driedger
    VAN · 7/7 · 1.000
    in relief · 18:28
    +1.0
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    Attempts faced
    11
    Avg chance faced
    8.8%
    Stopped vs expected
    1.000 vs 0.912
    Rebounds allowed
    0
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium0/70.7+0.7
    Low0/30.1+0.1
    Shorthanded0/10.1+0.1
    Tips & deflections0/10.1+0.1
    The save
    19% chance stopped, a wrist from 10 ft · P3 13:29

    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

    N. Tolopilo
    VAN · 12/14 · .857
    started · 40:00 · loss
    -0.8
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    Attempts faced
    19
    Avg chance faced
    6.4%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.895 vs 0.936
    Rebounds allowed
    1 · 1 scored on
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium2/101.0-1.0
    Low0/80.1+0.1
    Shorthanded0/10.1+0.1
    Tips & deflections0/20.2+0.2
    The save
    20% chance stopped, a snap from 14 ft · P2 13:00
    The one to have back
    8% chance went in, a snap from 32 ft · P1 03:58

    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. Howard (EDM), 17:59 of ice, 1-1, 43% of the expected goals while he was out.

    EDM18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    I. HowardL17:591-143A+
    T. CibulkaD17:000-166A
    Q. HutsonR15:551-052A
    V. MarjalaL15:240-156A
    E. TralmaksR11:360-072C
    R. BerzkalnsC11:520-045C
    A. RatyR12:470-057D
    A. LeppanenD5:260-032D
    O. MichaelsR17:480-035D
    M. JonesL17:050-027D
    R. StillmanD17:510-038D
    W. NichollC7:050-020D
    D. LewandowskiL12:230-026D
    D. CarfagnaD25:250-043F
    J. SamanskiC17:450-023F
    C. ClattenburgC15:500-034F
    T. EmbersonD26:180-034F
    S. StastneyD25:410-027F
    VAN18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    L. KarlssonC18:001-062A+
    J. DeBruskL17:000-085A+
    Z. BuiumD25:050-162A
    J. LekkerimäkiR11:450-177A
    M. RossiC19:230-070B
    F. ChytilC4:540-084B
    B. BoeserR19:030-061B
    E. PetterssonC20:480-076B
    P. CotterL12:030-044B
    B. CootesC11:140-051B
    V. ManciniD17:370-052B
    L. SchennD14:500-065C
    L. OhgrenL20:240-063C
    G. BriseboisD14:380-052C
    D. O'ConnorL15:210-041C
    J. OleksiakD17:020-050C
    F. HronekD24:220-056C
    B. GallagherR12:030-042D

    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, EDM: M. Ekholm, Z. Hyman, F. Andersen, R. Nugent-Hopkins, C. Murphy, S. Griffith and 42 more. Scratched, VAN: M. MacEachern, T. Demko, A. Thomas, K. Lankinen, M. Stienburg, J. Thompson and 29 more. Referees Kelly Sutherland and Riley Brace; linesmen Bevan Mills and Trent Knorr.

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionEDMVAN
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    EDM Created 2.19 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.38 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.78 xG).

    VAN Created 3.19 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.70 xG) and 22 rush shots (2.06 xG).

    C-
    71
    B
    84
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    EDM Allowed 3.19 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.70 xG) and 22 rush shots (2.06 xG).

    VAN Allowed 2.19 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.38 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.78 xG).

    D
    66
    C+
    79
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    EDM Rush shots 20–22, rush xG 1.78–2.06 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    VAN Rush shots 22–20, rush xG 2.06–1.78 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    C-
    71
    C+
    79
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    EDM 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.19 PP xG.

    VAN 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.76 PP xG.

    F
    52
    B-
    81
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    EDM +2.19 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

    VAN +0.19 goals saved above expected on 21 shots against.

    A+
    97
    C+
    77
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    EDM Took 5 penalties for 10 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

    VAN Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 5 for 10 on the other side.

    D
    65
    B
    85
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    EDM Finishing -0.19 goals vs xG plus +2.19 GSAx of save luck = +2.00 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    VAN Finishing -2.19 goals vs xG plus +0.19 GSAx of save luck = -2.00 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    A-
    91
    F
    59
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    STRENGTHEDM

    T. Jarry stole it

    T. Jarry stopped 25 of 26 (0.962) — +2.19 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

    SURPRISEEDM

    Won against the run of play

    The Oilers took it 2-1 with only 41% of expected goals (2.19–3.19).

    LUCKVAN

    Cold finishing night

    Scored 1 on 3.19 xG — -2.19 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

    WARNINGEDM

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 22 rush shots worth 2.06 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    STRENGTHVAN

    Dangerous off the rush

    1 goals on 22 rush shots worth 2.06 xG.

    WARNINGVAN

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 20 rush shots worth 1.78 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    68 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    EDM
    30 shots
    2
    Final
    68 shots
    VAN
    38 shots
    1
    EDM attackVAN attack
    EDM VAN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, VAN 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. Howard
    #53 · L · EDM
    1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 17:59 on ice · +2
    Z. Buium
    #8 · D · VAN
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 25:05 on ice · -1
    L. Karlsson
    #94 · C · VAN
    1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 18:00 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page