VAN @ CBJ
2026-01-15 · final 1–4 · what happened, next to what the engine said before puck drop
What happened
VAN attacks the left net, CBJ the right — every unblocked attempt the game produced: × goals, • on net, ◦ missed (hover a marker for the shooter and its xG). To compare against the pregame call, switch the Surface to the engine's predicted-xG map — the shots land on top of where the engine expected the game to be played.
| VAN | CBJ | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Goals | 4 |
| 2.89 | Expected goals (xG) | 3.40 |
| 2.27 | 5v5 xG | 2.95 |
| 0.61 | Power-play xG | 0.46 |
| 31 | Shots on goal | 36 |
| 59 | Shot attempts | 79 |
Counts come from the shot table behind the maps: empty-net attempts and the shootout are excluded, so the goals row can trail the official final by an empty-netter or the shootout's deciding goal.
Goals
| Team | Scorer | Period | Strength | xG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBJ | Charlie Coyle | 1 | PP | 0.08 |
| VAN | Brock Boeser | 2 | PP | 0.16 |
| CBJ | Kirill Marchenko | 2 | 5v5 | 0.09 |
| CBJ | Zach Werenski | 2 | PP | 0.05 |
| CBJ | Kent Johnson | 3 | 5v5 | 0.18 |
The prediction, scored
Before puck drop the engine made CBJ a 71.5% favorite, expecting a 2.21–3.52 game — CBJ won 1–4, so the call landed. Every number in this section was issued before the game and is never re-graded.
| pred. xG | actual xG | pred. 5v5 | actual 5v5 | pred. ST | actual PP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 2.21 | 2.89 | 1.48 | 2.27 | 0.61 | 0.61 |
| CBJ | 3.52 | 3.40 | 2.68 | 2.95 | 0.66 | 0.46 |
Predicted 5v5 / special-teams portions come from the map's strength splits (one shared scale per team pins the all-strengths total to its expected goals), so they don't sum exactly — the remainder is 4v4, 3v3, and other mixed states. The actual PP column is power-play xG only, the same bucket the map's special-teams view draws.
The pregame score grid
The likeliest finals the engine saw before the game, with what actually happened marked — ■ VAN · ■ CBJ.
| Likeliest finals (VAN–CBJ) | probability | |
|---|---|---|
| 2–3 | 5.8% | |
| 1–3 | 5.2% | |
| 2–4 | 5.1% | |
| 2–2 | 4.9% | tied after regulation — OT/SO decides |
| 1–4 | 4.6% | what happened |
Scoreline odds treat the two teams' totals as independent — the engine's known simplification (it slightly under-counts regulation ties; the correlation term is registered v1.1 work). The OT/SO layer is a separate fitted model and is already inside the headline win probability.
The pregame read
The engine made CBJ a 71.5% favorite — CBJ controls 61.4% of the predicted xG. Of VAN's 2.21 expected goals, 1.48 should come at 5v5 and 0.61 on the power play; CBJ projects 2.68 at 5v5 and 0.66 on the power play. The logistic challenger put the home side at 73.4%, Elo at 70.0%.
Tale of the tape
How each team fares on its own, season to date: per-game xG rates with league rank (of 32). Rank 1 is best on every row — orange ranks sit in the top third of the league, gray in the bottom third.
| VAN | CBJ | |
|---|---|---|
| 2.64 (25th) | Offense xG for / game |
2.95 (13th) |
| 3.28 (32nd) | Defense xG against / game |
2.95 (19th) |
| 0.71 (11th) | Power play PP xG / game |
0.58 (28th) |
| 0.66 (17th) | Penalty kill PP xG conceded / game |
0.74 (25th) |
Season-to-date form as of the site's latest build, shown for context — the ratings the engine actually used were its own as-of-game-day state. Replay this matchup in the lab →