BAKPacific Division · 5th of 10 · Edmonton Oilers

BakersfieldCondors

Mechanics Bank Arena, Bakersfield, CA

37-23-12
Record: 86
Points: 244
Goals for: 236
Against: +8
Differential

At home25-8-3126–98 (+28)

On the road12-15-9118–138 (-20)

Last 104-4-2 · oldest first

The story

By chance quality BAK were a middle club: 12th of 32 in creation, 31st of 32 in suppression.

They finished 42 goals above what the chances were worth (3rd of 32 in shooting), and conceded 9 more than the chances against were worth (15th of 32 in save percentage).

The power play was 5th of 32 at 22.8%.

Where BAK ranks

Expected Goals For % · 27 of 32

47.06%

xGF/60 · 12 of 32

2.74

xGA/60 · 31 of 32

3.08

Scoring Chance % · 28 of 32

47.04%

High Danger Chance % · 19 of 32

48.57%

Shooting % · 3 of 32

12.25%

Save % · 15 of 32

89.4%

PDO · 5 of 32

101.6%

Power Play % · 5 of 32

22.80%

Penalty Kill % · 14 of 32

81.73%

Special Teams Index · 6 of 32

104.53%

Rush Share of Goals · 24 of 32

37.7%

Goals For · 3 of 32

244

Goals Against · 25 of 32

236

Each bar is a percentile against all 32 clubs, with the league median on the tick. Metrics where less is better are flipped, so longer is always better.

Shots for and against

BAK1,992 shots · 202 xG

quiet3.2 xG per 5 ft

Allowed2,220 shots · 227 xG

quiet3.2 xG per 5 ft

Special teams

	Goals	Chances	Rate
Power play	57	250	22.8%
Penalty kill	55	301	81.7%

Special-teams index 104.5 — power play plus penalty kill, the one number that says whether a club wins the nights the referee decides.

How the game unfolds

1st period54.4%of goals scored

Goals: 81–68
xG share: 45.9%

2nd period47.4%of goals scored

Goals: 73–81
xG share: 47.7%

3rd period52.2%of goals scored

Goals: 82–75
xG share: 47.6%

	1st	2nd	3rd
Goals for	81	73	82
Goals against	68	81	75
xG for	59.8	75.2	62.4
xG against	70.5	82.5	68.8
Shots for	639	706	618
Shots against	722	771	688

Share of goals is this club’s goals as a percentage of every goal scored in that period, so 50% is even. xG share is the same sum over chance quality, which says whether the result matched the play. Regulation only — overtime is three skaters a side and a different game.

How the goals came

Goals	For	Share	Against	Share
Off the rush	92	37.7%	97	41.1%
Off the cycle	114	46.7%	94	39.8%
In a scramble	36	14.8%	44	18.6%

Attempts	For	Sh%	Against	Sv%
Off the rush	485	19.0%	515	81.2%
Off the cycle	1364	8.4%	1534	93.9%
In a scramble	143	25.2%	171	74.3%

A rush is the first shot of a possession, taken inside 40 ft up the middle; the cycle is a shot after sustained pressure, or a first shot from distance or the wall; a scramble is a second attempt inside four seconds. League-wide they convert at about 17%, 8% and 23%. Shares are of goals scored in play — shootout winners are not shots.

Volume

	For	Against
Shots	1992	2220
Expected goals	201.8	226.9
Scoring chances	739	—
High-danger chances	340	—

With a lead, level, and from behind

Score state	Share of play	GF–GA	GF%	GF% ex. EN	xGF%	SF%	Sh%ex. EN	Sv%ex. EN
Leading	38%1,697 min	88–87	50.3%lg 52.5%	44.9%lg 47.9%	43.3%lg 48.1%	42.9%lg 46.4%	10.3%lg 10.4%	90.7%lg 90.4%
Tied	31%1,393 min	77–70	52.4%lg 50.0%	52.4%lg 50.0%	47.0%lg 50.0%	47.1%lg 50.0%	12.1%lg 9.6%	90.3%lg 90.4%
Trailing	31%1,410 min	83–79	51.2%lg 47.3%	56.1%lg 52.2%	51.6%lg 51.9%	53.1%lg 53.7%	11.9%lg 9.6%	89.2%lg 89.6%

Regulation only — overtime is three-on-three and always starts level, so pooling it here would contaminate every rate. The small figure under each percentage is the league in the same score state; BAK being above it is the claim, not the percentage itself. GF% ex. EN drops empty-net goals from both sides, and across the league it reverses the headline: clubs are outscored at even play while protecting a lead, and outscore while chasing. The empty net is what settles it.

2025-26 skaters · 36

Player	GP	G	A	P	SOG	ixG
Seth GriffithRW	71	18	49	67	82	10.42
Quinn HutsonRW	67	30	33	63	199	24.13
Viljami MarjalaC	72	17	43	60	130	17.86
Isaac HowardLW	47	24	26	50	151	17.25
Rem PitlickLW	69	22	28	50	106	13.20
Sam PoulinC	71	21	28	49	161	19.61
Roby JärventieRW	61	23	24	47	115	14.29
James HamblinC	64	27	14	41	109	15.98
Atro LeppänenD	53	11	27	38	115	8.23
Josh SamanskiC	45	8	23	31	44	5.77
Rhett PitlickRW	60	8	15	23	55	5.27
Damien CarfagnaD	66	7	15	22	106	7.42
Cam DineenD	40	3	18	21	92	5.03
Daniel D’AmatoLW	68	7	12	19	95	11.57
Max JonesLW	39	10	8	18	81	9.66
Riley StillmanD	51	3	15	18	58	2.50
Josh BrownD	57	2	11	13	55	2.84
Matvey PetrovRW	38	5	7	12	40	3.65
Alec RegulaD	20	4	7	11	38	2.71
Luke ProkopD	42	3	8	11	52	1.97
Beau AkeyD	42	2	8	10	48	2.25
Mason MillmanD	44	1	7	8	48	1.93
Ethan KeppenRW	44	4	2	6	42	4.40
Connor ClattenburgLW	32	2	2	4	16	1.98
Brady StonehouseRW	9	0	3	3	4	0.43
Josh BloomLW	22	2	1	3	19	2.43
Matt CopponiC	29	2	1	3	34	3.30
Tommy LafreniereF	5	1	1	2	8	0.89
Tyler InamotoD	9	0	2	2	5	0.15
David LewandowskiF	1	0	1	1	1	0.03
Matthew BrownF	17	0	1	1	10	1.09
Matthew SavoieRW	1	0	1	1	3	0.24
Tyson FeistD	13	0	1	1	9	0.33
William NichollF	5	1	0	1	7	0.78
Andrew MangiapaneRW	1	0	0	0	0	—
James StefanRW	6	0	0	0	2	0.06

2025-26 goaltending

Goalie	GP	W	SV%	GAA	GSAx
Matt Tomkins	42	20	90.4%	2.98	7.7
Connor Ungar	13	9	92.3%	2.51	11.5
Connor Ingram	11	4	85.6%	4.04	-11.6
Calvin Pickard	8	4	88.6%	3.26	-2.8

Full schedule · 72 regular + 3 playoff

Recent Full schedule

Date	Opp	Result	Goals	xG
2025-10-11	@ SJ	L	6–7	2.9–4.2
2025-10-18	vs SJ	W	2–1	2.4–1.4
2025-10-19	vs CV	W	5–4	3.8–3.3
2025-10-24	@ TUC	L	1–5	2.8–3.1
2025-10-25	@ TUC	W	3–1	3.2–2.9
2025-10-28	@ COL	OTL	4–5	2.5–3.4
2025-10-29	@ COL	L	1–2	2.3–2.9
2025-11-01	@ CGY	OTL	3–4	3.9–2.6
2025-11-02	@ CGY	L	1–6	1.7–2.1
2025-11-07	vs HSK	W	4–2	1.8–3.6
2025-11-08	vs HSK	W	5–3	2.3–3.9
2025-11-11	@ CV	L	3–6	4.6–3.2
2025-11-14	@ SD	OTL	3–4	3.1–4.3
2025-11-15	vs CV	W	6–3	2.6–2.9
2025-11-18	vs CGY	W	5–2	2.5–2.9
2025-11-21	@ ONT	L	2–3	1.9–2.5
2025-11-22	vs ONT	OTL	2–3	1.0–4.4
2025-11-29	vs HSK	W	7–4	2.3–2.3
2025-12-03	vs TUC	W	5–1	3.6–1.8
2025-12-05	@ HSK	L	2–5	2.3–3.1
2025-12-06	@ HSK	W	4–0	2.0–2.0
2025-12-10	vs HSK	L	2–5	2.5–3.7
2025-12-12	@ TUC	OTL	4–5	3.2–5.2
2025-12-13	@ TUC	W	8–7	3.2–3.1
2025-12-17	vs ONT	L	0–4	1.2–3.2
2025-12-19	@ CV	W	5–4	3.8–2.3
2025-12-20	vs CV	W	3–2	3.2–3.8
2025-12-27	vs SD	L	2–5	2.0–3.5
2025-12-31	@ CV	W	7–3	4.3–3.3
2026-01-02	vs SJ	W	4–1	3.0–3.0
2026-01-03	vs SJ	W	2–1	4.2–3.3
2026-01-06	@ ABB	W	5–3	1.4–3.2
2026-01-07	@ ABB	W	4–1	2.0–2.5
2026-01-10	@ SJ	OTL	3–4	2.6–3.9
2026-01-11	vs ONT	W	3–0	2.2–2.7
2026-01-16	@ CGY	W	5–1	3.3–3.2
2026-01-18	@ CGY	W	1–0	2.8–2.9
2026-01-21	vs COL	W	3–0	2.4–3.1
2026-01-23	vs COL	L	1–4	2.6–4.6
2026-01-24	@ SJ	L	3–5	2.5–4.4
2026-01-28	@ HSK	OTL	1–2	1.9–4.1
2026-01-30	vs ABB	W	7–2	4.7–4.1
2026-01-31	vs ABB	W	3–2	2.8–5.3
2026-02-03	vs CGY	W	3–2	2.6–2.6
2026-02-06	vs ONT	L	3–4	1.7–3.1
2026-02-07	@ ONT	L	3–4	2.0–4.0
2026-02-13	vs SD	L	1–3	2.7–2.5
2026-02-14	@ SD	W	5–4	2.5–2.9
2026-02-18	vs CV	W	4–3	4.0–2.7
2026-02-20	vs CGY	OTL	4–5	3.1–3.1
2026-02-24	@ COL	L	2–4	2.4–3.0
2026-02-25	@ COL	W	4–3	3.6–4.7
2026-02-28	@ CV	OTL	2–3	3.2–2.8
2026-03-01	@ ONT	L	2–4	2.2–2.5
2026-03-03	vs COL	W	5–4	3.9–2.9
2026-03-06	vs TUC	OTL	2–3	2.2–3.4
2026-03-07	vs TUC	W	2–0	2.0–3.2
2026-03-13	@ TEX	W	4–1	2.3–2.8
2026-03-14	@ TEX	L	2–6	3.2–4.0
2026-03-20	@ SD	L	4–7	1.4–2.3
2026-03-21	vs CGY	W	1–0	1.5–1.7
2026-03-27	vs TEX	W	4–3	5.5–1.9
2026-03-28	vs TEX	W	6–3	3.8–2.3
2026-04-01	vs COL	L	2–5	2.1–3.1
2026-04-03	@ SD	L	3–6	2.4–3.1
2026-04-04	@ ONT	L	3–6	2.7–2.6
2026-04-08	vs TUC	W	5–2	3.6–2.4
2026-04-10	vs SD	W	5–3	3.5–2.6
2026-04-11	vs SD	L	3–7	4.0–3.1
2026-04-14	@ HSK	OTL	2–3	2.4–2.6
2026-04-17	vs SJ	W	5–2	4.3–4.0
2026-04-18	@ SJ	OTL	3–4	3.5–3.4
2026-04-23	vs CVPlayoff	W	6–1	2.7–4.0
2026-04-25	@ CVPlayoff	L	4–5	1.8–2.6
2026-04-26	@ CVPlayoff	L	2–6	2.9–2.9