Backcheck
Recap · EDM at DAL

Stars run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

The Stars earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

By the ModelJul 12, 1:33 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
EDM
Edmonton Oilers
3
Home
DAL
Dallas Stars
4
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.11Expected goals5.38
63% share for the better side
26Shot attempts (SOG)27
6High-danger chances11
50Corsi (all attempts)62
Score-adjusted: 40% / 60%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Dallas dominated the underlying numbers but still needed a shootout to beat Edmonton 4-3. The Stars controlled 63% of expected goals (5.38–3.11), a decisive advantage that should have felt dominant—except they underperformed their xG by 1.38 goals, and Skinner kept the Oilers in contention by saving 2.38 goals above expected.

The gap came down to quality over volume. Dallas generated far more dangerous looks, outshooting Edmonton on high-danger chances 11–6 and posting a xG-per-shot rate of 0.087 versus Edmonton's 0.062. This is the story the underlying numbers tell: Dallas made their chances count when it mattered, while Edmonton couldn't capitalize, going 0–6 on high-danger opportunities.

Yet the scoreboard told a closer tale. Both teams pushed shots on net—Dallas at 27, Edmonton at 26—creating a wide-open game with 17 high-danger chances combined. DeSmith was near-perfect in net for Dallas, stopping all six high-danger shots against him. Skinner, meanwhile, stole the show for Edmonton despite the loss, overperforming his xG by 2.38 goals in a losing effort.

The turning point arrived in the shootout, where W. Johnston's snap shot from the slot decided the outcome. It's the kind of variance that shrouds a blowout in the illusion of a close call: Dallas had the better underlying play, the better goaltending on high-danger chances, and the better shot quality. The only thing they didn't have was a multi-goal lead at the final horn.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM0 / 6 · 1.34 xG
DAL2 / 11 · 3.17 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM2 / 12 · 1.15 xG
DAL1 / 16 · 1.87 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM1 / 32 · 0.62 xG
DAL0 / 35 · 0.34 xG

EDM went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.34 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
3 G · 3.11 xG · -0.1
DAL
4 G · 5.38 xG · -1.4
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
S. SkinnerEDM
+2.4
C. DeSmithDAL
+0.1

EDM finished -0.1 against expected, DAL -1.4 — S. Skinner (EDM) saved 2.4 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
SNAP3/27
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/1
SLAP0/7
WRIST0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/9
DAL
SNAP2/28
BACKHAND1/4
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/0
WRIST0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/20
EDM
DAL
Off the rush
3 G on 30 · 2.33 xG
2 G on 27 · 4.09 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.32 xG
1 G on 7 · 1.01 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: EDM went 3-for-27, DAL 2-for-28. EDM scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
W. Johnston
#53 · C · DAL
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 23:29 TOI · +1
M. Rantanen
#96 · R · DAL
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:48 TOI · +1
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:13 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • EDM generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • S. Skinner (EDM) stopped 2.4 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 17 high-danger chances combined (DAL 11, EDM 6).
  • DAL generated far more dangerous chances — 0.087 xG/shot vs 0.062. Quality over quantity.
  • EDM couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • DAL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 27 rush chances.
  • EDM was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 30 rush chances.
  • DAL created 7 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • DAL underperformed xG by 2.4 — wasted quality chances.
  • S. Skinner (EDM) saved 2.4 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • C. DeSmith was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 6 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · EDM at DAL · 8:00 PM ET

Oilers at Stars: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 2:35 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
DAL
Model favorite
49%
51%
EDM50DAL

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.52.5 DAL; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

EDM← edge
edge →DAL
52.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
50.0%Corsi%47.0%
2.64xGF / 602.36
2.47xGA / 602.29
2.13Goals for / gm2.07
2.29Goals against / gm1.68
0.982PDO — luck, not skill1.024

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.982 vs 1.024) says DAL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The pregame model calls this a coin flip: 2.5 goals projected for each side, the Stars at 51% win probability. It's about as close to pick'em as the numbers get.

The 5v5 metrics explain why. Edmonton leads in xG% (52.0% to 51.0%) and Corsi% (50.0% to 47.0%), indicating superior territorial control. But Dallas's PDO of 1.024 versus Edmonton's 0.982 reveals the symmetry: the Stars are running hot on puck luck, the Oilers cold. That divergence will eventually regress, but tonight is uncertain.

Dallas enters underwater: −5 goal differential over their last 10 games. That's what unsustainably high PDO and slightly worse territory produce. The Oilers figure to spend tonight in Dallas's end.

The single-game wildcard: star power. Both teams concentrate their offensive punch among elite creators. Connor McDavid (25G, 33A) is Edmonton's engine, Zach Hyman (1.23 xG/60, 14G) the secondary finisher. Dallas leans on Jason Robertson (25G, 21A) and Michael Bunting (8G, 7.6% shooting). With both teams posting 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound rates, offense lives or dies on star creation. The team whose best player wins his individual battle will likely win the game.

The secondary level provides the tiebreaker. Jake Walman is Edmonton's defensive liability; Tyler Myers is Dallas's. In a matchup this tight, a giveaway or missed coverage could decide it.

The model is right. This is a coin flip.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters