4-1: Final (VAN). 24-30: Shots (VAN-SEA). 1.91-2.23: xG (VAN-SEA). 0.44: VAN goals xG (sum) Vancouver's four goals came off shots the model priced at 0.15, 0.11, 0.09, and 0.07 xG . Sum the four: 0.44 expected goals , which the Goldeneyes converted into four actual goals. That is a +3.56 finishing night on the shots that beat the goalie. That is the kind of scoring signature that wins games the run of play shouldn't have produced. Seattle, on the other end, created 2.23 xG across 30 shots and finished once. Vancouver's shot share was 44% ; their score-adjusted Corsi was 29% . Seattle outplayed them and lost by three. The four-minute second period After Sarah Nurse opened the scoring at 2:18 of the first on a 0.15 xG look, the game stayed structurally close. Seattle was generating shots; Vancouver was getting the kind Maschmeyer could see. Then the Goldeneyes scored three times in 4 minutes and 31 seconds of the second period: Hannah Miller at 6:37 (0.11 xG), Anna Meixner at 10:35 (0.09 xG), and Madison Samoskevich at 11:08 (0.07 xG). That stretch is the game. The combined xG on the three goals is 0.27, roughly the quality of a single slightly-above-average slot chance, converted three straight times. Goaltending, decomposed Emerance Maschmeyer faced 30 shots worth 2.23 xG and conceded one. That is +1.23 goals saved above expectation across sixty minutes. A +1.4 single-game GSAx is well into outlier territory; in a game where Seattle produced the majority of the shot volume and the xG, Maschmeyer was the reason the scoreboard ran one way. Corinne Schroeder started for Seattle, faced 15 shots worth 1.36 xG , and allowed four. Her GSAx for the shift was -2.64 . Carly Jackson came in in relief, faced 9 shots worth 0.56 xG and allowed none (+0.56 GSAx). The goaltender-on-goaltender gap in this game, Maschmeyer's +1.23 against the combined Seattle GSAx of -2.09, is +3.31 goals . The final margin was three. The game in cumulative xG The scoring timeline P1 2:18 · Sarah Nurse · xG 0.16 · VAN 1, SEA 0. P2 6:37 · Hannah Miller · xG 0.10 · VAN 2, SEA 0. P2 10:35 · Anna Meixner · xG 0.09 · VAN 3, SEA 0. P2 11:08 · Madison Samoskevich · xG 0.09 · VAN 4, SEA 0. P3 11:18 · Mikyla Grant-Mentis · xG 0.13 · VAN 4, SEA 1 Seattle's third-period push Shots in the third period: Seattle 16, Vancouver 3 . The Torrent generated Theresa Schafzahl at 0.16, Aneta Tejralová at 0.16, Hilary Knight at 0.15, Natalie Snodgrass at 0.15, Lexie Adzija at 0.14, Alex Carpenter at 0.14, Julia Gosling at 0.13. Seven different skaters with shots the model priced at 0.13 or higher, the kind PWHL-average shooters convert at a combined rate of roughly one in seven. One did: Mikyla Grant-Mentis at 11:18, her 0.13 xG chance. The rest went into Maschmeyer. Seattle's third-period xG was ~1.5; their third-period goal total was one. Seattle's best non-goals The chances the model graded as Seattle's best looks at the Vancouver goaltenders. Every entry here is a shot the average PWHL shooter converts at least 7% of the time. P1 15:09 · Alex Carpenter · xG 0.16. P3 5:09 · Aneta Tejralová · xG 0.16. P3 13:29 · Hilary Knight · xG 0.16. P3 1:31 · Lexie Adzija · xG 0.15. P3 8:24 · Theresa Schafzahl · xG 0.14. P2 15:25 · Alex Carpenter · xG 0.13 What this read isn't Not a claim Seattle deserved the win. They had the better process by every underlying metric (shot share, xG, score-adjusted Corsi, high-danger count). Finishing and goaltending are part of hockey, and on this night neither went their way. xG measures opportunity, not outcome.. Not a claim Vancouver got lucky. Scoring four goals on 0.42 xG is well above the model's baseline rate, yes, but someone has to finish the high-end of the distribution. Tonight it was the Goldeneyes, and Sarah Nurse scoring from a 0.15 xG look two minutes into the game is not a statistical freak event.. Not an indictment of Corinne Schroeder . A -2.56 GSAx night is a bad shift on a single starter's record. The season-average Seattle goaltending line is nowhere near that. One bad hour doesn't change the underlying profile. It did, however, change this game.. Not a model failure. Vancouver winning a 2.07-to-2.41 xG game 4-1 sits inside the normal variance of finishing and goaltending. The model is descriptive of the process, not the scoreboard. Methodology xG model : PWHL-calibrated logistic regression on 16,709 non-EN shots. Same fit as the methodology post . Features: distance, angle, rebound (≤3 s), penalty shot, power play, overtime, scorer-tagged quality chance, seven shot-type dummies. Empty-net shots are priced outside the main model (MoneyPuck / NST convention).. GSAx : summed xG on shots faced minus goals allowed, computed per-goalie from the PBP feed. Empty-net shots and goals are excluded from both sides of the ledger.. Numbers regenerate on every build. A PBP re-sync or xG recalibration reshapes every figure in this post on the next static export. Full play-by-play, shift overlays, and the per-player game log for this game are at /games/106 .