Oilers hold off the Sharks
The Oilers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.
The underlying story
Expected goals split dead even at 4.25–4.24, yet Edmonton won 5–3—a two-goal gap that goaltending variance explains almost entirely.
The underlying play favored Edmonton modestly. The Oilers held 55% of shot attempts (37–30 on goal) and had high-danger chances 7–6. But xG registered as a draw.
C. Ingram (EDM) saved 27 of 30 shots for a 0.900 SV%, beating expected performance by 1.24 goals. A. Nedeljkovic (SJS) saved 32 of 37 for 0.865 SV%, falling 0.75 short. That two-goal swing in save performance created the scoreboard gap.
Both teams scored 3 rush goals; the Oilers on 28 attempts, San Jose on 26. Two of Edmonton's five goals came from low-danger areas—the kind of chances goaltenders need to stop.
Zach Hyman's backhander from the doorstep in the third period (P3, 08:12) proved the turning point.
The danger ladder
EDM went 2-for-34 from low danger on 0.52 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.
Finishing vs expected
SJS finished -1.2 against expected, EDM +0.8 — C. Ingram (EDM) saved 1.2 goals above expected.
Shot diet
Snap shots carried the volume: SJS went 0-for-17, EDM 2-for-13. SJS scored 3 of theirs off the rush.
- C. Ingram (EDM) stopped 1.2 goals above expected.
- EDM scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
- EDM was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 28 rush chances.
- SJS was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 26 rush chances.
- EDM created 6 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- SJS created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.