Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater

Breakdown · FLA at SJS

Sharks edge the Panthers in overtime

Final / OTThu, Oct 1

FLAFlorida Panthers3 SJSSan Jose Sharks4

The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.14–3.45 and won anyway.

FLA 3 · SJS 4

◆ By the ModelOct 2, 1:02 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

L. Cagnoni scored at 3:14 of overtime to give San Jose a 4-3 victory. The Panthers dominated the underlying play but came up short.

The Panthers generated 4.14 expected goals and scored three, missing by 1.14 against their own workload. That shortfall decided the result more than any single play. Y. Askarov made the difference: he stopped 1.1 goals above expected and didn't allow a single high-danger chance to beat him. A. Schmid absorbed the pressure on 32 shots, allowed four, and finished 0.55 below his expected save percentage.

The Sharks jumped out fast. M. Marchment scored at 14:20 of the first. W. Smith added two more before the third—shorthanded at 5:52, then on the power play at 10:37—both assisted by M. Celebrini. San Jose led 3-0 after two periods.

Florida battled back. E. Luostarinen scored on a power-play rebound in the second, then added a third-period tip-in off the rush. M. Tkachuk tied it at 5:18 of the third with a wrist shot from 26 feet. Cagnoni's overtime winner ended the game.

San Jose held 55 percent of shot attempts and controlled the neutral zone exits more effectively than Florida. Both teams scored twice off the rush—transition was dangerous for both sides. The Sharks' execution in the offensive zone created more high-danger looks; Y. Askarov turned away every premium chance; and the Panthers couldn't convert their own quality shots. That formula—Florida's better expected-goal output meeting a wall in net—decided the game.

The goals

SJS 0–1, 14:20 of the first. M. Marchment, wrist shot from 59 feet, a 1% chance by the model, past A. Schmid. 4 seconds after a FLA giveaway by A. Lundell. Win probability moved 16 points.
SJS 0–2, 05:52 of the second shorthanded. W. Smith, wrist shot from 24 feet, a 17% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Schmid. Assists: M. Celebrini. 6 seconds after a SJS takeaway by M. Celebrini. Win probability moved 14 points.
SJS 0–3, 10:37 of the second on the power play. W. Smith, slap shot from 4 feet, a 47% chance by the model (a rebound), past A. Schmid. Assists: M. Celebrini, L. Cagnoni. 3 seconds after a SJS shot by M. Celebrini. Win probability moved 7 points.
FLA 1–3, 17:10 of the second on the power play. E. Luostarinen, backhander from 5 feet, a 12% chance by the model (a rebound), past Y. Askarov. Assists: L. Eller, A. Ekblad. 3 seconds after a FLA shot by L. Eller. D. Orlov was 58 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 6 points.
FLA 2–3, 05:01 of the third. E. Luostarinen, tip-in from 29 feet, a 3% chance by the model (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Assists: D. Kulikov, A. Lundell. Win probability moved 14 points.
FLA 3–3, 05:18 of the third. M. Tkachuk, wrist shot from 27 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Assists: S. Bennett. 4 seconds after a FLA hit by S. Bennett. Win probability moved 27 points.
SJS 3–4, 03:14 of overtime. L. Cagnoni, wrist shot from 19 feet, a 19% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Schmid. Assists: W. Smith, M. Celebrini. 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 · Oct 1

FLA

SJS

Sharks edge the Panthers in overtime

Chances 4.1 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

4.14

SJS

3.45

55% of the chances45%

The board read FLA 3, SJS 4. The chances read FLA 4.1, SJS 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

SJS

+0.6

goals above expected

SJS3.45 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA4.14 expected · 3 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

The swing

+50

win-probability points

50% → 100% for SJS

SJS 100%the game, start to finish

FLA 100%P1 · P2 · P3

SJSOT 03:14

L. Cagnoni makes it 3–4.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games

Every goal, in order

P1 14:20SJSM. Marchment1%0–1
P2 05:52SJSW. SmithSH17%0–2
P2 10:37SJSW. SmithPP47%0–3
P2 17:10FLAE. LuostarinenPP12%1–3
P3 05:01FLAE. Luostarinen3%2–3
P3 05:18FLAM. Tkachuk14%3–3
OT 03:14SJSL. Cagnoni19%3–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

FLA

49 shots

Final

97 shots

SJS

48 shots

FLA SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLASJS

0 / 5

1.20 xG

High danger

2 / 3

0.85 xG

2 / 24

2.54 xG

Medium

1 / 21

2.17 xG

1 / 41

0.40 xG

Low

1 / 37

0.42 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

B+

Y. Askarov

+1.1

SJS · 23/26 · 63:14

Best save · a 32% chance, tip-in from 4 ft · P3 15:08

A. Schmid

−0.6

FLA · 28/32 · 63:14

Best save · a 20% chance, wrist from 8 ft · P4 01:45

Best skater on the ice

A+

SJS

W. Smith

C · impact 3.19

20:09

Ice time

2–1

G – A

0.88

Own xG

88%

xG share

Impact · top 4

W. Smith3.2A+

M. Celebrini3.0A+

L. Cagnoni2.2A+

E. Luostarinen1.9A

Report card

FLASJS

OffenseA+B+

DefenseD-F

TransitionBD+

Special teamsBB

GoaltendingD+B

DisciplineBD

LuckD-B+

Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown

Why it went the way it went

Why SJS won

01Dangerous off the rush
02Power play cashed in
03Y. Askarov was perfect on high danger

Why FLA lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Wasted the best looks
03Cold finishing night

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sharks edge the Panthers in overtime

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 6–11

14:20SJSM. Marchment0–1
Wrist shot from 59 feet, a 1% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past A. Schmid. 4s after a FLA giveaway by A. Lundell. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: T. Toffoli, D. Nurse, M. Kesselring, I. Chernyshov, M. Misa · against L. Eller, R. Gudas, G. Hathaway, B. Imama, U. Balinskis

2ndshots 11–8

05:52SJSW. Smithshorthanded(M. Celebrini)0–2
Wrist shot from 24 feet, a 17% chance (off the rush), past A. Schmid. 6s after a SJS takeaway by M. Celebrini. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: D. Orlov, L. Cagnoni, W. Smith, M. Celebrini · against L. Eller, D. Kulikov, N. Mikkola, E. Luostarinen, S. Vilmanis
10:37SJSW. Smithpower play(M. Celebrini, L. Cagnoni)0–3
Slap shot from 4 feet, a 47% chance (a rebound), past A. Schmid. 3s after a SJS shot by M. Celebrini. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: D. Orlov, T. Toffoli, K. Sherwood, L. Cagnoni, M. Misa · against S. Jones, N. Mikkola, E. Luostarinen, A. Lundell, S. Vilmanis
17:10FLAE. Luostarinenpower play(L. Eller, A. Ekblad)1–3
Backhander from 5 feet, a 12% chance (a rebound), past Y. Askarov. 3s after a FLA shot by L. Eller. D. Orlov was 58s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 6 points.On the ice: L. Eller, R. Gudas, G. Hathaway, B. Imama, N. Mikkola · against D. Orlov, T. Toffoli, L. Cagnoni, I. Chernyshov, M. Misa

3rdshots 9–7

05:01FLAE. Luostarinen(D. Kulikov, A. Lundell)2–3
Tip-in from 29 feet, a 3% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Win probability moved 14 points.
05:18FLAM. Tkachuk(S. Bennett)3–3
Wrist shot from 27 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. 4s after a FLA hit by S. Bennett. Win probability moved 27 points.

OTshots 0–6

03:14SJSL. Cagnoni(W. Smith, M. Celebrini)3–4
Wrist shot from 19 feet, a 19% chance (off the rush), past A. Schmid. Win probability moved 50 points.

score reads FLA–SJS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.45

SJS chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.023

SJS puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

46.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.14Expected goals3.45

FLA 55% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal32

5High-danger chances3

70All attempts (Corsi)61

Adjusted for score: FLA 57% · SJS 43%

Faceoffs · SJS won32%off41%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA0 / 5 · 1.20 xG

SJS2 / 3 · 0.85 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA2 / 24 · 2.54 xG

SJS1 / 21 · 2.17 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA1 / 41 · 0.40 xG

SJS1 / 37 · 0.42 xG

FLA went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.20 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

3 G · 4.14 xG · -1.1

SJS

4 G · 3.45 xG · +0.6

012345

FLA finished -1.1 against expected, SJS +0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST1/25

SNAP0/10

SLAP0/4

TIP IN1/9

BACKHAND1/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/21

SJS

WRIST3/31

SNAP0/3

SLAP1/8

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/4

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/12

FLA

SJS

Off the rush

2 G on 34

3.17 xG

2 G on 32

2.50 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.53 xG

1 G on 4

0.79 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 1-for-25, SJS 3-for-31. FLA scored 2 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

A. Schmid

FLA · 28/32 · .875

started · 63:14 · OT loss

-0.6

saved above expected

the night

Attempts faced: 48
Avg chance faced: 7.2%
Stopped vs expected: 0.917 vs 0.928
Rebounds allowed: 4 · 1 scored on

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/30.8-1.1

Medium1/212.2+1.2

Low1/240.4-0.6

Shorthanded1/111.3+0.3

Tips & deflections0/20.0+0.0

The save

20% chance stopped, a wrist from 8 ft · P4 01:45

The one to have back

1% chance went in, a wrist from 59 ft · P1 14:20

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

Y. Askarov

SJS · 23/26 · .885

started · 63:14 · win

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

Attempts faced: 49
Avg chance faced: 8.5%
Stopped vs expected: 0.939 vs 0.915
Rebounds allowed: 4 · 1 scored on

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.2+1.2

Medium2/242.5+0.5

Low1/200.4-0.6

Shorthanded1/201.8+0.8

Tips & deflections1/90.8-0.2

The save

32% chance stopped, a tip-in from 4 ft · P3 15:08

The one to have back

3% chance went in, a tip-in from 29 ft · P3 05:01

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: W. Smith (SJS), 20:09 of ice, 2-1, 88% of the expected goals while he was out.

FLA18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
E. LuostarinenC	16:28	2-0	3	0.50	40	1/0	1.90	6.92	A
M. TkachukL	22:47	1-0	2	0.60	86	1/0	1.96	5.16	A
L. EllerC	14:57	0-1	2	0.28	46	1/0	1.10	4.43	A
S. BennettC	20:49	0-1	1	0.32	83	0/1	1.13	3.25	A
A. LundellC	20:43	0-1	3	0.54	55	0/0	1.12	3.24	B
B. TkachukL	19:37	0-0	4	0.33	88	1/1	1.00	3.06	B
S. ReinhartC	23:33	0-0	2	0.53	86	0/0	0.86	2.20	B
A. EkbladD	21:33	0-1	0	0.04	54	0/0	0.61	1.70	B
D. KulikovD	17:28	0-1	0	0.00	19	0/0	0.54	1.84	B
A. BarkovC	9:15	0-0	1	0.01	70	1/0	0.40	2.59	B
R. GudasD	13:31	0-0	1	0.01	78	0/0	0.30	1.34	C
S. JonesD	27:43	0-0	2	0.26	58	0/1	0.33	0.72	C
G. HathawayR	6:03	0-0	0	0.00	49	1/0	0.14	1.39	C
B. ImamaL	5:16	0-0	0	0.00	72	0/0	0.10	1.08	C
C. VerhaegheC	17:14	0-0	0	0.11	64	0/0	0.13	0.46	D
U. BalinskisD	12:52	0-0	1	0.00	91	1/2	0.07	0.33	D
S. VilmanisL	12:19	0-0	2	0.58	20	0/0	-0.05	-0.25	D
N. MikkolaD	22:42	0-0	2	0.05	26	0/1	-0.42	-1.12	F

SJS18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
W. SmithC	20:09	2-1	4	0.88	88	0/0	3.19	9.51	A+
M. CelebriniC	22:57	0-3	7	0.42	81	0/0	3.03	7.93	A+
L. CagnoniD	21:17	1-1	3	0.42	74	1/1	2.19	6.18	A+
M. MarchmentL	12:44	1-0	4	0.17	82	0/1	1.11	5.24	A
M. MisaC	11:34	0-0	3	0.37	62	0/0	0.45	2.31	B
I. ChernyshovL	12:13	0-0	1	0.11	60	0/0	0.26	1.29	C
D. OrlovD	17:55	0-0	1	0.01	53	0/0	0.27	0.92	C
T. ToffoliC	9:24	0-0	1	0.03	60	0/0	0.18	1.17	C
A. WennbergC	21:44	0-0	3	0.26	41	0/0	0.26	0.73	C
I. StenbergL	13:35	0-0	0	0.14	43	0/0	0.04	0.17	D
K. SherwoodL	14:01	0-0	1	0.20	44	1/1	0.03	0.13	D
C. GrafR	16:48	0-0	0	0.11	19	2/1	0.02	0.08	D
N. AllanD	20:44	0-0	1	0.19	33	0/0	-0.03	-0.08	D
J. TroubaD	22:35	0-0	2	0.11	22	1/1	-0.11	-0.28	D
M. KesselringD	19:46	0-0	1	0.01	28	0/0	-0.21	-0.64	F
B. GoodrowC	14:09	0-0	0	0.00	11	0/0	-0.33	-1.38	F
Z. OstapchukC	11:29	0-0	0	0.00	9	1/0	-0.34	-1.78	F
D. NurseD	17:07	0-0	0	0.01	23	0/2	-0.43	-1.50	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, FLA: G. Forsling. Scratched, SJS: T. Dellandrea, B. Leason, S. Dickinson. Referees Kyle Rehman and Graham Skilliter; linesmen Andrew Smith and Dan Kelly.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionFLASJS

Offense

▸Basis

FLA Created 4.14 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.20 xG) and 34 rush shots (3.17 xG).

SJS Created 3.45 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.85 xG) and 32 rush shots (2.50 xG).

A+

100

B+

Defense

▸Basis

FLA Allowed 3.45 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.85 xG) and 32 rush shots (2.50 xG).

SJS Allowed 4.14 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.20 xG) and 34 rush shots (3.17 xG).

D-

Transition

▸Basis

FLA Rush shots 34–32, rush xG 3.17–2.50 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

SJS Rush shots 32–34, rush xG 2.50–3.17 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D+

Special teams

▸Basis

FLA 1-for-5 on the power play (20%; league ≈21%) with 1.83 PP xG.

SJS 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 1.28 PP xG.

Goaltending

▸Basis

FLA -0.55 goals saved above expected on 32 shots against.

SJS +1.14 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

D+

Discipline

▸Basis

FLA Took 6 penalties for 18 PIM vs 7 for 22 on the other side.

SJS Took 7 penalties for 22 PIM vs 6 for 18 on the other side.

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

FLA Finishing -1.14 goals vs xG plus -0.55 GSAx of save luck = -1.69 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

SJS Finishing +0.55 goals vs xG plus +1.14 GSAx of save luck = +1.69 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

D-

B+

Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately

What the model flagged

WARNINGSJS

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 34 rush shots worth 3.17 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHFLA

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 34 rush shots worth 3.17 xG.

WARNINGFLA

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 32 rush shots worth 2.50 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHSJS

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 32 rush shots worth 2.50 xG.

LUCKFLA

Wasted the best looks

0-for-5 on high-danger chances worth 1.20 xG — that conversion rate won't stay at zero.

STRENGTHSJS

Y. Askarov was perfect on high danger

Y. Askarov stopped all 5 high-danger shots he faced (100% HD save rate).

97 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

49 shots

Final

97 shots

SJS

48 shots

FLA SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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

M. Celebrini

#71 · C · SJS

0 G · 3 A · 7 SOG · 22:57 on ice · +1

W. Smith

#2 · C · SJS

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:09 on ice · +2

L. Cagnoni

#42 · D · SJS

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:17 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page