Rush defense leaked all night
Gave up 28 rush shots worth 2.94 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

Edmonton beat Seattle 3-1. Connor McDavid scored the clincher into an empty net late in the third, but the Oilers' dominance through transition arrived much earlier.
The expected goals split reveals how wide the gap actually was. Edmonton controlled 67% of 5v5 expected goals (3.95–1.94), but that understates the dominance — they held only 56% of shot attempts, meaning their shots were far more dangerous per-shot. Seattle's 20 attempts generated 1.94 expected goals; Edmonton's 25 added up to 3.95. The Kraken's offense, such as it was, happened on thin ice.
Edmonton was lethal in transition. The Oilers generated 28 rush chances worth 2.94 expected goals and converted two of them, essentially deciding the game by the end of the second period. Seattle created 3 rebound opportunities and cashed none of them — the effort was there, the execution wasn't.
P. Grubauer stopped 1.9 goals above expected, a 22-save, 0.917 save percentage night that was among Seattle's best hopes. It couldn't matter. When one team controls play entirely in open ice and converts rush chances, a goalie's excellence becomes background noise. D. Levi made 19 saves on 20 shots for a 0.950 save percentage, above expected as well, but faced a far lighter workload.
Seattle won the special teams battle — one power-play goal, no penalties in the third. Edmonton's penalty kill was a liability. Neither of it mattered once Edmonton seized transition. The Kraken were running catch-up by the second intermission.
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.
Oilers run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers
The Oilers earned this one.
The board read SEA 1, EDM 3. The chances read SEA 1.9, EDM 4.0.
Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.
L. Draisaitl makes it 1–2.
The Kraken went 0 for 3 from the slot.
Oilers run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers
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 24 feet, a 4% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past P. Grubauer. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: M. Ekholm, L. Draisaitl, C. McDavid, E. Bouchard, V. Podkolzin · against J. Eberle, C. Stephenson, B. Montour, B. McMann, R. Evans
Wrist shot from 19 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Levi. Win probability moved 21 points.On the ice: A. Larsson, F. Gaudreau, V. Dunn, M. Samoskevich, B. Meyers · against L. Draisaitl, J. Walman, C. McDavid, E. Bouchard, V. Podkolzin
Snap shot from 13 feet, a 24% chance (off the rush), past P. Grubauer. 10s after an EDM miss by R. Shea. Win probability moved 40 points.
Wrist shot from 89 feet, a 51% chance. 1s after a SEA hit by B. Montour.
score reads SEA–EDM
EDM went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.72 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.
SEA finished -0.9 against expected, EDM -0.9.
Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 1-for-17, EDM 2-for-8. EDM scored 2 of theirs off the rush.
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: C. McDavid (EDM), 26:17 of ice, 1-1, 71% of the expected goals while he was out.
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B. McMannC | 17:58 | 1-0 | 3 | 0.30 | 63 | 0/0 | 1.37 | 4.58 | A |
| J. EberleR | 17:10 | 0-1 | 1 | 0.46 | 70 | 0/0 | 1.24 | 4.32 | A |
| C. StephensonC | 18:07 | 0-1 | 1 | 0.23 | 62 | 0/0 | 0.97 | 3.22 | A |
| J. McCannL | 14:29 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.20 | 68 | 0/0 | 0.35 | 1.45 | B |
| B. CattonC | 15:40 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.20 | 71 | 0/0 | 0.28 | 1.09 | B |
| C. FleuryD | 13:47 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.01 | 51 | 0/0 | 0.26 | 1.13 | B |
| R. LindgrenD | 13:57 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.11 | 54 | 1/1 | 0.21 | 0.89 | C |
| B. MontourD | 23:21 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.13 | 56 | 1/1 | 0.25 | 0.64 | C |
| F. GaudreauC | 11:37 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.12 | 32 | 0/0 | 0.18 | 0.91 | C |
| M. SamoskevichR | 11:54 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 87 | 0/0 | 0.14 | 0.68 | C |
| K. KakkoR | 13:11 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 62 | 0/0 | 0.14 | 0.64 | C |
| R. EvansD | 19:03 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.09 | 57 | 0/1 | 0.13 | 0.42 | D |
| S. WrightC | 14:40 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 67 | 0/0 | 0.07 | 0.31 | D |
| M. BeniersC | 16:06 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.01 | 54 | 0/0 | 0.07 | 0.28 | D |
| B. MeyersC | 10:59 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 29 | 1/0 | 0.05 | 0.27 | D |
| V. DunnD | 23:50 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.04 | 55 | 1/2 | 0.04 | 0.11 | D |
| R. WintertonC | 11:26 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.05 | 40 | 0/1 | -0.09 | -0.45 | D |
| A. LarssonD | 23:39 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 25 | 0/0 | -0.26 | -0.65 | F |
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C. McDavidC | 26:17 | 1-1 | 4 | 1.03 | 71 | 1/0 | 2.65 | 6.05 | A+ |
| L. DraisaitlC | 24:08 | 1-0 | 5 | 1.37 | 85 | 1/0 | 2.41 | 5.99 | A+ |
| V. PodkolzinR | 20:22 | 0-1 | 2 | 0.43 | 79 | 0/0 | 1.44 | 4.25 | A+ |
| O. MichaelsR | 13:58 | 1-0 | 3 | 0.06 | 6 | 0/0 | 0.69 | 2.97 | A |
| E. BouchardD | 27:01 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.17 | 83 | 0/0 | 0.83 | 1.83 | A |
| A. FormentonL | 14:03 | 0-1 | 2 | 0.09 | 5 | 0/0 | 0.44 | 1.89 | B |
| J. WalmanD | 13:52 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.04 | 72 | 0/0 | 0.32 | 1.37 | B |
| C. DachC | 12:33 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.10 | 50 | 1/1 | 0.21 | 1.02 | B |
| T. EmbersonD | 11:22 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 70 | 1/0 | 0.19 | 1.00 | B |
| K. KapanenR | 17:48 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.04 | 59 | 0/0 | 0.20 | 0.68 | C |
| R. SheaD | 21:31 | 0-1 | 0 | 0.01 | 15 | 0/0 | 0.19 | 0.53 | C |
| M. JonesL | 9:42 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.21 | 78 | 1/2 | 0.13 | 0.80 | C |
| I. HowardL | 8:22 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.09 | 20 | 0/0 | -0.07 | -0.52 | D |
| M. JosephR | 15:04 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.24 | 3 | 0/0 | -0.16 | -0.65 | D |
| T. FredericC | 8:15 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 23 | 1/1 | -0.12 | -0.87 | F |
| M. EkholmD | 22:41 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 39 | 0/1 | -0.20 | -0.54 | F |
| J. SamanskiC | 6:18 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.06 | 15 | 0/0 | -0.13 | -1.20 | F |
| C. MurphyD | 19:21 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0/1 | -0.80 | -2.48 | 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, SEA: J. Mahura, C. Douglas, V. Ottavainen. Scratched, EDM: Z. Hyman, S. Stastney, S. Mukhamadullin. Referees Pierre Lambert and Brandon Blandina; linesmen Mark Shewchyk and Jeremy Faucher.
SEA Created 1.94 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.62 xG) and 16 rush shots (1.67 xG).
EDM Created 3.95 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 7 high-danger shots (1.81 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.94 xG).
SEA Allowed 3.95 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 7 high-danger shots (1.81 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.94 xG).
EDM Allowed 1.94 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.62 xG) and 16 rush shots (1.67 xG).
SEA Rush shots 16–28, rush xG 1.67–2.94 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
EDM Rush shots 28–16, rush xG 2.94–1.67 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
SEA 1-for-2 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 0.36 PP xG.
EDM 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.93 PP xG.
SEA +1.95 goals saved above expected on 24 shots against.
EDM +0.94 goals saved above expected on 20 shots against.
SEA Took 7 penalties for 25 PIM vs 6 for 23 on the other side.
EDM Took 6 penalties for 23 PIM vs 7 for 25 on the other side.
Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral
SEA Finishing -0.94 goals vs xG plus +1.95 GSAx of save luck = +1.01 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
EDM Finishing -0.95 goals vs xG plus +0.94 GSAx of save luck = -0.01 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
Gave up 28 rush shots worth 2.94 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
2 goals on 28 rush shots worth 2.94 xG.
The Oilers controlled 67% of expected goals (3.95–1.94) and won 3-1 — result matched process.
Gave up 16 rush shots worth 1.67 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
P. Grubauer stopped 22 of 24 (0.917), +1.95 goals above expected.
1 goals on 16 rush shots worth 1.67 xG.
Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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.
The model favors Edmonton decisively — 58% win probability on a 3.0–3.5 goal spread — and the underlying data backs the lean. The Oilers hold a concrete territorial advantage that should press into expected-goal dominance, but both teams face opposing regression forces that could scramble the outcome.
Edmonton drives shot attempts at 56.8%, a decisive edge over Seattle's 43.7%. That territorial tilt should translate, yet the expected-goals gap narrows significantly: Edmonton at 58.6%, Seattle at 58.2%. The gap is real but thin — close enough that PDO swings could dominate.
Edmonton's 0.900 PDO is running cold and overdue for positive correction, a tailwind for the Oilers. Seattle's 1.157 runs hot and due for negative swing, a headwind. Together, those forces favor Edmonton, though PDO swings can carry entire games.
The goaltending matchup tilts sharply toward the Oilers. J. Daccord has registered +1.8 goals above expected in one game with a 96.0% save percentage, while D. Levi sits at -4.0 on a 68.2% save percentage — a 5.8-goal edge for Edmonton's starter.
Both teams are dangerous in the slot. Seattle scores at 18% from the slot — 9 goals on 50 shots — while Edmonton converts at 22% on 10 goals from 45 attempts. Whichever team closes that area early controls the goal-scoring margins.
EDM by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score SEA 3.0–3.5 EDM; 16% chance it's tied after 60.
EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.157 vs 0.900) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.
The Oilers drive Corsi at 56.8% — expect territorial tilt.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.900 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.
The Kraken's PDO is 1.157 — running hot, expect some regression.
Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.
Their most productive scoring zone over last 5 games.
Most goals from slot (9G on 50 shots, 18%) — deny that lane
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.