Backcheck
Recap · VAN at VGK

Golden Knights run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 10:00 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VAN
Vancouver Canucks
2
Home
VGK
Vegas Golden Knights
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.25Expected goals4.54
67% share for the better side
24Shot attempts (SOG)34
3High-danger chances9
33Corsi (all attempts)67
Score-adjusted: 33% / 67%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

K. Lankinen stopped 1.54 goals above expected. His team lost anyway. Vegas's dominance was complete: 67% of 5v5 expected goals (4.54–2.25), 59% of shot attempts (34–24 on goal), and 9–3 in high-danger chances. The 4-2 final was inevitable.

Vancouver never generated enough offense to compete. Vegas was efficient off the rush—3 goals on 30 chances. Vancouver scored 2 on 19. Cole Smith's backhander from the wing (P3, 18:50) was the turning point.

K. Lankinen made 30 of 33 saves (0.909 SV%, +1.54 vs expected) and kept the margin close. A. Hill (0.917 SV%) had an easier night. F. Hronek led with 1A in 28:00. #27 S. Theodore (1G, 22:35) and #3 B. McNabb (1A, 21:38) drove Vegas's advantage.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN1 / 3 · 0.68 xG
VGK3 / 9 · 2.22 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN1 / 12 · 1.23 xG
VGK1 / 19 · 1.91 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 18 · 0.34 xG
VGK0 / 39 · 0.41 xG

VGK went 1-for-19 from medium danger on 1.91 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
2 G · 2.25 xG · -0.3
VGK
4 G · 4.54 xG · -0.5
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. LankinenVAN
+1.5
A. HillVGK
+0.2

VAN finished -0.3 against expected, VGK -0.5 — K. Lankinen (VAN) saved 1.5 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST0/13
SNAP0/5
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND1/3
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/5
VGK
WRIST2/28
SNAP1/6
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/3
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/20
VAN
VGK
Off the rush
2 G on 19 · 1.81 xG
3 G on 30 · 3.20 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.13 xG
0 G on 1 · 0.13 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-13, VGK 2-for-28. VGK scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
F. Hronek
#17 · D · VAN
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 28:00 TOI · -1
S. Theodore
#27 · D · VGK
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:35 TOI · +2
B. McNabb
#3 · D · VGK
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:38 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • VAN generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • K. Lankinen (VAN) stopped 1.5 goals above expected.
  • VGK was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 30 rush chances.
  • VAN was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 19 rush chances.
  • K. Lankinen (VAN) saved 1.5 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VAN at VGK · 10:00 PM ET

The Golden Knights are the model's lean over the Canucks — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 12, 9:36 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

61%
VGK
Model favorite
39%
61%
VAN50VGK

VGK by 22 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.22.8 VGK; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

VAN← edge
edge →VGK
44.0%5v5 xG%54.0%
46.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.22xGF / 602.52
2.81xGA / 602.11
1.60Goals for / gm2.12
2.56Goals against / gm2.10
0.974PDO — luck, not skill0.983

VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.974 vs 0.983) says VGK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.8-2.2 Vegas victory with the Golden Knights at 61% win probability.

Vegas owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Golden Knights generate xG at 54.0% to Vancouver's 44.0%—a 10-point spread that signals sustained territorial dominance. That same advantage appears in Corsi, where Vegas leads 52.0% to 46.0%, meaning more offensive looks per shot fired. Vancouver's recent form compounds this. At -18 goal differential over their last 10 games, they're bleeding chances; Vegas sits at -6. Directional edges that large persist.

Both teams are running cold in PDO—Vegas at 0.983, Vancouver at 0.974—which means both have room for positive regression. The key: Vegas is generating 54.0% xG%, so when variance corrects, they're far likelier to cash. Vancouver, at only 44.0% xG%, needs an unsustainable shooting bump to stay close.

The goaltending picture is clouded. A. Hill and K. Lankinen are both on back-to-backs, so expect either a backup start or a fatigued starter. Lineup announcements closer to puck drop will clarify.

Injuries tilt the scales further. Filip Chytil hasn't played in 56 days and is likely out—his 1.03 xG/60 was Vancouver's offensive spine. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 11.8% shooting) becomes the primary secondary threat. For Vegas, Brandon Saad is marked inactive, removing a 0.91 xG/60 forward from play. Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 4.3% shooting) anchors the attack.

Victor Mancini is Vancouver's defensive weak point; Rasmus Andersson presents similar concerns for Vegas. Both teams have registered 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate—a metric suspicious in its extremity, suggesting either elite positioning or vanishing sample size.

Players to Watch:

  • VAN: Drew O'Connor (13G, 11.8% shooting)
  • VGK: Tomas Hertl (5G, 4.3% shooting)
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters