Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Tue, Sep 29 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at EDM

Canucks steal one from the Oilers against the run of play

Final / OTTue, Sep 29
VANVancouver Canucks6EDMEdmonton Oilers5
The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.42–3.95 and won anyway.

VAN 6 · EDM 5
◆ By the ModelSep 30, 1:01 AMxG: 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

P. Cotter won it at 01:59 of overtime with a backhander from the doorstep, giving Vancouver a 6–5 victory that should never have happened. The Oilers dominated the game — they held 62% of expected goals and outshot the Canucks 37–23 — but Vancouver finished what they created and Edmonton's goaltending fell apart.

The Oilers controlled the run of play for 60 minutes. They generated 8 high-danger chances to Vancouver's 4, and their rush game was lethal: 27 rush chances that should have buried the Canucks. It didn't matter. T. Jarry let in 6 on 23 shots, finishing 3.58 goals worse than his workload suggested. K. Lankinen, despite poor defense in front of him, remained reliable with 32 saves.

The Canucks' path to victory was clinical: fewer chances, but they converted the key ones. E. Pettersson scored on the power play from 19 feet, a shot the model gave just 8%. Vancouver finished their special-teams opportunity; Edmonton couldn't finish theirs.

By the numbers, this was a heist. The Canucks outperformed their expected goals by 3.58; the Oilers overperformed theirs by just 1.05. Vancouver's finishing was elite or lucky — the models can't tell which — but it was the difference.

Final: VAN 6 – EDM 5 (OT)

The goals

  • VAN 1–0, 09:51 of the first shorthanded. P. Cotter, snap shot from 32 feet, a 12% chance by the model (off the rush), past T. Jarry. 8 seconds after an EDM shot by L. Draisaitl. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • EDM 1–1, 16:26 of the first. E. Bouchard, snap shot from 54 feet, a 1% chance by the model, past K. Lankinen. 5 seconds after an EDM faceoff win by C. McDavid. Win probability moved 18 points.
  • VAN 2–1, 02:07 of the second. M. Rossi, snap shot from 17 feet, a 23% chance by the model (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Assists: L. Ohgren, F. Hronek. Win probability moved 19 points.
  • EDM 2–2, 14:34 of the second. E. Bouchard, snap shot from 17 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past K. Lankinen. Assists: C. McDavid, A. Formenton. Win probability moved 24 points.
  • VAN 3–2, 01:10 of the third. J. Lekkerimäki, snap shot from 36 feet, a 4% chance by the model (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Assists: J. DeBrusk, J. Oleksiak. Win probability moved 27 points.
  • VAN 4–2, 02:55 of the third. M. Sasson, backhander from 8 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Assists: D. O'Connor, L. Karlsson. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • VAN 5–2, 05:15 of the third on the power play. E. Pettersson, tip-in from 19 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Assists: F. Hronek, B. Boeser. Win probability moved 6 points.
  • EDM 5–3, 08:56 of the third. V. Podkolzin, snap shot from 5 feet, a 32% chance by the model (off the rush), past K. Lankinen. Assists: E. Bouchard, R. Shea.
  • EDM 5–4, 09:20 of the third. E. Bouchard, wrist shot from 60 feet, a 1% chance by the model, past K. Lankinen. Assists: C. McDavid. 4 seconds after an EDM faceoff win by C. McDavid. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • EDM 5–5, 19:17 of the third on the power play. V. Podkolzin, snap shot from 29 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past K. Lankinen. Assists: L. Draisaitl, E. Bouchard. Win probability moved 48 points.
  • VAN 6–5, 01:59 of overtime. P. Cotter, backhander from 5 feet, a 66% chance by the model (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Assists: M. Sasson. 5 seconds after a VAN takeaway by P. Cotter. Win probability moved 50 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 · OT · Sep 29
VAN
6
EDM
5

Canucks steal one from the Oilers against the run of play

Chances 2.4 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.42
EDM
3.95
38% of the chances62%

The board read VAN 6, EDM 5. The chances read VAN 2.4, EDM 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+3.6
goals above expected
VAN2.42 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM3.95 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks scored 3.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+50
win-probability points
50% → 100% for VAN
EDM 100%the game, start to finish
VAN 100%P1 · P2 · P3
VANOT 01:59

P. Cotter makes it 6–5.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 09:51VANP. CotterSH12%1–0
  2. P1 16:26EDME. Bouchard1%1–1
  3. P2 02:07VANM. Rossi23%2–1
  4. P2 14:34EDME. Bouchard20%2–2
  5. P3 01:10VANJ. Lekkerimäki4%3–2
  6. P3 02:55VANM. Sasson14%4–2
  7. P3 05:15VANE. PetterssonPP8%5–2
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
30 shots
6
Final
78 shots
EDM
48 shots
5
VAN attackEDM attack
VAN EDM Goal
30
shots · 6 in
48
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANEDM
2 / 4
1.26 xG
High danger
2 / 8
1.73 xG
3 / 9
0.84 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.92 xG
1 / 31
0.32 xG
Low
2 / 46
0.31 xG

The Canucks buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D-
K. Lankinen
−1.1
VAN · 32/37 · 61:43
Best save · a 24% chance, snap from 11 ft · P1 16:46
F
T. Jarry
−3.6
EDM · 17/23 · 61:33
Best save · a 19% chance, backhand from 7 ft · P2 17:21
Best skater on the ice
A+
EDM
E. Bouchard
D · impact 4.40
25:41
Ice time
3–2
G – A
0.23
Own xG
66%
xG share
Impact · top 4
E. Bouchard4.4A+
V. Podkolzin3.1A+
P. Cotter1.7A+
L. Draisaitl2.1A
Report card
VANEDM
OffenseC+A+
DefenseFC-
TransitionDB+
Special teamsA+F
GoaltendingDF
DisciplineDB
LuckAF
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why VAN won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won against the run of play
  3. 03Clinical in the slot
Why EDM lost
  1. 01T. Jarry couldn't make the stop
  2. 02Rush defense leaked all night
  3. 03Deserved a better fate
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks steal one from the Oilers 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 5–13
  1. 09:51VANP. Cottershorthanded1–0

    Snap shot from 32 feet, a 12% chance (off the rush), past T. Jarry. 8s after an EDM shot by L. Draisaitl. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: L. Schenn, E. Pettersson, L. Ohgren, E. Pettersson · against K. Kapanen, J. Walman, R. Shea, T. Frederic, I. Howard

  2. 16:26EDME. Bouchard1–1

    Snap shot from 54 feet, a 1% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past K. Lankinen. 5s after an EDM faceoff win by C. McDavid. Win probability moved 18 points.On the ice: M. Joseph, R. Shea, M. Jones, S. Mukhamadullin, C. Dach · against L. Schenn, B. Gallagher, P. Cotter, A. Bains, E. Pettersson

2ndshots 7–9
  1. 02:07VANM. Rossi(L. Ohgren, F. Hronek)2–1

    Snap shot from 17 feet, a 23% chance (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Win probability moved 19 points.On the ice: L. Schenn, B. Gallagher, P. Cotter, A. Bains, E. Pettersson · against M. Ekholm, T. Frederic, E. Bouchard, I. Howard, O. Michaels

  2. 14:34EDME. Bouchard(C. McDavid, A. Formenton)2–2

    Snap shot from 17 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past K. Lankinen. Win probability moved 24 points.On the ice: C. Murphy, L. Draisaitl, K. Kapanen, R. Shea, V. Podkolzin · against J. DeBrusk, F. Hronek, E. Pettersson, J. Lekkerimäki, Z. Buium

3rdshots 9–15
  1. 01:10VANJ. Lekkerimäki(J. DeBrusk, J. Oleksiak)3–2

    Snap shot from 36 feet, a 4% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Win probability moved 27 points.On the ice: B. Boeser, F. Hronek, M. Rossi, L. Ohgren, Z. Buium · against C. Murphy, J. Walman, M. Joseph, M. Jones, C. Dach

  2. 02:55VANM. Sasson(D. O'Connor, L. Karlsson)4–2

    Backhander from 8 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: J. Oleksiak, J. DeBrusk, E. Pettersson, J. Lekkerimäki, T. Willander · against L. Draisaitl, K. Kapanen, R. Shea, V. Podkolzin, S. Mukhamadullin

  3. 05:15VANE. Petterssonpower play(F. Hronek, B. Boeser)5–2

    Tip-in from 19 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past T. Jarry. Win probability moved 6 points.On the ice: F. Hronek, L. Karlsson, D. O'Connor, M. Sasson, Z. Buium · against M. Joseph, R. Shea, M. Jones, S. Mukhamadullin, C. Dach

  4. 08:56EDMV. Podkolzin(E. Bouchard, R. Shea)5–3

    Snap shot from 5 feet, a 32% chance (off the rush), past K. Lankinen.

  5. 09:20EDME. Bouchard(C. McDavid)5–4

    Wrist shot from 60 feet, a 1% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past K. Lankinen. 4s after an EDM faceoff win by C. McDavid. Win probability moved 15 points.

  6. 19:17EDMV. Podkolzinpower play(L. Draisaitl, E. Bouchard)5–5

    Snap shot from 29 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past K. Lankinen. Win probability moved 48 points.

OTshots 2–0
  1. 01:59VANP. Cotter(M. Sasson)6–5

    Backhander from 5 feet, a 66% chance, a near-certain one (off the rush), past T. Jarry. 5s after a VAN takeaway by P. Cotter. Win probability moved 50 points.

score reads VAN–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.42
VAN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.067
VAN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
37.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.42Expected goals3.95
EDM 62% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal37
4High-danger chances8
44All attempts (Corsi)72
Adjusted for score: VAN 35% · EDM 65%
Faceoffs · EDM won64%off62%neu46%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN2 / 4 · 1.26 xG
EDM2 / 8 · 1.73 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN3 / 9 · 0.84 xG
EDM1 / 18 · 1.92 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN1 / 31 · 0.32 xG
EDM2 / 46 · 0.31 xG

VAN went 3-for-9 from medium danger on 0.84 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
6 G · 2.42 xG · +3.6
EDM
5 G · 3.95 xG · +1.1
01234567

VAN finished +3.6 against expected, EDM +1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
SNAP3/5
WRIST0/17
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND2/3
SLAP0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/14
EDM
SNAP4/26
WRIST1/10
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/2
BAT0/2
OTHER0/24
VAN
EDM
Off the rush
6 G on 21
2.34 xG
3 G on 27
3.21 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 6
0.48 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VAN went 3-for-5, EDM 4-for-26. VAN scored 6 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 · 32/37 · .865
started · 61:43 · win
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
Attempts faced
46
Avg chance faced
8.6%
Stopped vs expected
0.891 vs 0.914
Rebounds allowed
6
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/81.7-0.3
Medium1/181.9+0.9
Low2/200.3-1.7
Shorthanded1/71.0-0.0
Tips & deflections0/40.2+0.2
The save
24% chance stopped, a snap from 11 ft · P1 16:46
The one to have back
1% chance went in, a wrist from 60 ft · P3 09:20

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

T. Jarry
EDM · 17/23 · .739
started · 61:33 · OT loss
-3.6
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
29
Avg chance faced
8.3%
Stopped vs expected
0.793 vs 0.917
Rebounds allowed
0
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.3-0.7
Medium3/90.8-2.2
Low1/160.3-0.7
Shorthanded1/30.3-0.7
Tips & deflections1/30.2-0.8
The save
19% chance stopped, a backhand from 7 ft · P2 17:21
The one to have back
4% chance went in, a snap from 36 ft · P3 01:10

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: E. Bouchard (EDM), 25:41 of ice, 3-2, 66% of the expected goals while he was out.

VAN18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
P. CotterL11:512-026A+
M. SassonC16:371-143A
F. HronekD25:080-230A
D. O'ConnorL17:400-142A
L. OhgrenL17:290-163B
M. RossiC15:011-044B
B. BoeserR14:510-196B
L. KarlssonC13:370-136C
E. PetterssonC19:231-023C
J. LekkerimäkiR12:361-014C
E. PetterssonD16:010-049D
J. DeBruskL15:350-113D
L. SchennD14:250-050D
J. OleksiakD23:380-116D
Z. BuiumD22:460-035D
B. GallagherR10:540-044F
A. BainsL10:520-028F
T. WillanderD20:400-015F
EDM18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
E. BouchardD25:413-266A+
V. PodkolzinR18:202-092A+
L. DraisaitlC21:150-191A
C. McDavidC22:510-278A
A. FormentonL15:090-149B
R. SheaD22:410-169B
C. MurphyD18:290-078B
K. KapanenR17:550-081B
Z. HymanL20:330-078C
J. WalmanD16:250-068C
M. JonesL12:180-065C
M. EkholmD20:560-057C
C. DachC14:490-065C
S. MukhamadullinD13:030-062D
I. HowardL11:060-029D
M. JosephR14:570-065D
O. MichaelsR8:220-035F
T. FredericC9:210-029F

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, VAN: G. Brisebois, A. Räty, V. Mancini. Scratched, EDM: R. Nugent-Hopkins, T. Emberson, S. Stastney. Referees Eric Furlatt and Peter MacDougall; linesmen Joe Mahon and Mark Shewchyk.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionVANEDM
Offense
▸Basis

VAN Created 2.42 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.26 xG) and 21 rush shots (2.34 xG).

EDM Created 3.95 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 8 high-danger shots (1.73 xG) and 27 rush shots (3.21 xG).

C+
79
A+
100
Defense
▸Basis

VAN Allowed 3.95 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 8 high-danger shots (1.73 xG) and 27 rush shots (3.21 xG).

EDM Allowed 2.42 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.26 xG) and 21 rush shots (2.34 xG).

F
50
C-
71
Transition
▸Basis

VAN Rush shots 21–27, rush xG 2.34–3.21 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

EDM Rush shots 27–21, rush xG 3.21–2.34 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D
63
B+
87
Special teams
▸Basis

VAN 1-for-2 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 0.16 PP xG.

EDM 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.75 PP xG.

A+
100
F
56
Goaltending
▸Basis

VAN -1.05 goals saved above expected on 37 shots against.

EDM -3.58 goals saved above expected on 23 shots against.

D
65
F
39
Discipline
▸Basis

VAN Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

EDM Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

D
65
B
85
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

VAN Finishing +3.58 goals vs xG plus -1.05 GSAx of save luck = +2.53 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

EDM Finishing +1.05 goals vs xG plus -3.58 GSAx of save luck = -2.53 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

A
95
F
55
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGEDM

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 21 rush shots worth 2.34 xG (6 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

WARNINGEDM

T. Jarry couldn't make the stop

T. Jarry allowed 6 on 23 shots (0.739) — 3.58 goals worse than expected.

Reassess the crease rotation before the next start.

STRENGTHVAN

Dangerous off the rush

6 goals on 21 rush shots worth 2.34 xG.

WARNINGVAN

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 27 rush shots worth 3.21 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

LUCKVAN

Ran hot in front of the net

Scored 6 on 2.42 xG — +3.58 above expected. Shooting luck like that regresses.

STRENGTHEDM

Dangerous off the rush

3 goals on 27 rush shots worth 3.21 xG.

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
30 shots
6
Final
78 shots
EDM
48 shots
5
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
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
3 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 25:41 on ice · +2
F. Hronek
#17 · D · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 25:08 on ice · +2
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:51 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Sep 29
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 2, 5:37 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

The model favors Edmonton by a decisive margin: the Oilers project at 62% win probability in a game it forecasts at 3.7–2.9 in their favor. The reason is clean: Edmonton dominates the underlying volume.

The Oilers own 58.6% of expected goals at five-on-five play, leaving Vancouver with 41.4%. That gap is structural — Edmonton also drives 56.8% of shot attempts, which means the Canucks will spend the evening defending a tilt. Territorial advantage this pronounced rarely lies.

But the model has a built-in caveat: regression. Edmonton's PDO sits at 0.900, meaning their results are running cold relative to their workload — the kind of deficit that usually corrects upward. Vancouver's PDO is 1.100, the opposite problem: the Canucks' shots are converting at a hot pace and will likely regress downward. That's not a reason to fade Edmonton's edge; it's a lens on how sustainable it is.

K. Lankinen has allowed more goals than expected across two appearances, posting minus-5.6 against expected and a 78.9% save percentage. D. Levi's numbers are worse in one outing: minus-3.8 against expected with a 68.2% save percentage. The goaltending matchup tilts toward Vancouver.

Both offenses are fishing the same water: the slot. Vancouver has scored five goals on 38 slot attempts (13% conversion), while Edmonton has four on 36 (11%). Those are the lanes where the game will be decided. Whichever team denies the other that real estate gains the upper hand.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 62%
62%
EDM
Model favorite
38%
62%
VAN50EDM

EDM by 24 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.9–3.7 EDM; 15% 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
41.4%58.6%
43.2%56.8%
2.884.08
4.082.88
6.507.00
7.006.50
1.1000.900

EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.100 vs 0.900) says VAN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
VAN
0-0-0
+0 GD · 2d rest
EDM
0-0-0
+0 GD · 2d rest
1.100
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.900
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Oilers own the underlying play

The Oilers own the underlying play — 58.6% 5v5 xG vs 41.4%.

TACTICAL

The Oilers drive Corsi at 56.8%

The Oilers drive Corsi at 56.8% — expect territorial tilt.

TACTICALEDM

The model's clear lean

The Oilers project at 62% win probability.

WARNINGEDM

Regression watch: Oilers

The Oilers' PDO is 0.900 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

Where the edges live
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 58.6% 5v5 xG vs 41.4%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 56.8% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.900 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 1.100 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 58.6% 5v5 xG vs 41.4%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 56.8% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: K. Lankinen (-5.6 GSAx in 2 GP, 78.9% SV) vs D. Levi (-3.8 GSAx in 1 GP, 68.2% SV).
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.900 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
2 days rest.893 last start
Backup Leevi Merilainen · +0.0 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM
Expected in goal
D. Levi
2 days rest.958 last start
Backup Tristan Jarry · -3.7 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.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page