SJPacific Division · 6th of 10 · San Jose Sharks

San JoseBarracuda

Tech CU Arena, San Jose, CA

40-28-4
Record: 84
Points: 243
Goals for: 230
Against: +13
Differential

At home22-13-1126–114 (+12)

On the road18-15-3117–116 (+1)

Last 102-8-0 · oldest first

The story

SJ generated chances (2nd of 32) and gave them back (22nd of 32 in chances allowed).

They finished 14 goals above what the chances were worth (24th of 32 in shooting), and conceded 26 more than the chances against were worth (22nd of 32 in save percentage).

The power play was 2nd of 32 at 24.3%.

Where SJ ranks

Expected Goals For % · 6 of 32

52.94%

xGF/60 · 2 of 32

3.14

xGA/60 · 22 of 32

2.79

Scoring Chance % · 7 of 32

52.92%

High Danger Chance % · 11 of 32

50.82%

Shooting % · 24 of 32

10.15%

Save % · 22 of 32

88.7%

PDO · 24 of 32

98.8%

Power Play % · 2 of 32

24.29%

Penalty Kill % · 18 of 32

80.99%

Special Teams Index · 2 of 32

105.28%

Rush Share of Goals · 22 of 32

38.3%

Goals For · 4 of 32

243

Goals Against · 21 of 32

230

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

SJ2,393 shots · 229 xG

quiet4.1 xG per 5 ft

Allowed2,031 shots · 204 xG

quiet4.1 xG per 5 ft

Special teams

	Goals	Chances	Rate
Power play	68	280	24.3%
Penalty kill	46	242	81.0%

Special-teams index 105.3 — power play plus penalty kill, the one number that says whether a club wins the nights the referee decides.

How the game unfolds

1st period48.5%of goals scored

Goals: 65–69
xG share: 52.7%

2nd period55.2%of goals scored

Goals: 95–77
xG share: 54.9%

3rd period47.7%of goals scored

Goals: 73–80
xG share: 50.7%

	1st	2nd	3rd
Goals for	65	95	73
Goals against	69	77	80
xG for	69.3	88.7	68.1
xG against	62.3	72.8	66.3
Shots for	771	826	766
Shots against	653	687	666

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	93	38.3%	97	42.2%
Off the cycle	119	49.0%	104	45.2%
In a scramble	28	11.5%	27	11.7%

Attempts	For	Sh%	Against	Sv%
Off the rush	572	16.3%	514	81.1%
Off the cycle	1677	7.1%	1392	92.5%
In a scramble	144	19.4%	125	78.4%

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	2393	2031
Expected goals	229.5	204.0
Scoring chances	843	—
High-danger chances	342	—

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	33%1,476 min	77–82	48.4%lg 52.7%	44.6%lg 47.9%	49.0%lg 48.0%	49.0%lg 46.5%	9.1%lg 10.4%	89.3%lg 90.4%
Tied	32%1,440 min	79–80	49.7%lg 50.0%	49.7%lg 50.0%	53.3%lg 50.0%	55.1%lg 50.0%	10.0%lg 9.6%	87.6%lg 90.4%
Trailing	34%1,523 min	82–73	52.9%lg 47.4%	60.7%lg 52.1%	55.1%lg 52.1%	57.1%lg 53.4%	9.3%lg 9.6%	91.8%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; SJ 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 · 41

Player	GP	G	A	P	SOG	ixG
Filip BystedtF	65	22	38	60	119	13.73
Colin WhiteC	46	21	27	48	96	13.14
Jimmy HuntingtonF	71	15	33	48	118	13.43
Quentin MustyF	61	21	24	45	168	18.33
Luca CagnoniD	67	8	35	43	162	9.41
Oliver WahlstromRW	62	24	18	42	162	17.51
Egor AfanasyevLW	64	14	26	40	174	17.77
Kasper HalttunenF	69	16	19	35	149	18.27
Igor ChernyshovF	41	13	20	33	82	9.29
Lucas CarlssonD	58	12	14	26	145	7.75
Cam LundF	37	9	16	25	93	10.79
Jack ThompsonD	56	6	19	25	106	3.90
Patrick GilesF	67	10	14	24	126	13.83
Nolan AllanD	64	4	16	20	76	3.67
Anthony VincentF	65	9	8	17	121	12.65
Ethan CardwellF	24	7	8	15	57	7.49
Mattias HavelidD	44	5	10	15	52	3.07
Donavan HouleF	39	4	9	13	58	5.31
Brendan HoffmannF	23	5	7	12	41	4.62
Pavol RegendaLW	28	4	8	12	56	6.31
Braden HacheD	72	3	8	11	80	3.86
Cole ClaytonD	65	2	9	11	56	2.15
Jake FurlongD	42	3	8	11	46	1.82
Jett WooD	43	2	8	10	62	2.67
Lucas VanroboysF	33	4	3	7	46	5.31
Vincent IorioD	6	0	7	7	5	0.23
Kyle CrnkovicF	18	1	5	6	17	1.96
Shane BowersF	25	1	4	5	24	2.99
Zack OstapchukC	11	3	1	4	14	1.64
Jake BoltmannD	14	0	2	2	7	0.33
Jarod CrespoD	2	1	1	2	2	0.32
Noah BeckD	13	0	2	2	11	0.75
Michael MisaF	2	0	1	1	2	0.40
Nick LeddyD	1	0	1	1	1	0.03
Samuel LabergeF	9	0	1	1	13	1.24
Erik BargholtzF	2	0	0	0	1	0.03
Jack BarD	5	0	0	0	4	0.19
John GormleyD	5	0	0	0	3	0.07
Mack OliphantD	1	0	0	0	2	0.05
Thomas MessineoD	3	0	0	0	3	0.09
Tristan SarslandD	4	0	0	0	3	0.08

2025-26 goaltending

Goalie	GP	W	SV%	GAA	GSAx
Gabriel Carriere	31	15	89.6%	2.76	-1.0
Laurent Brossoit	28	15	90.1%	3.06	-0.3
Jakub Skarek	20	12	88.8%	3.12	-5.3
Matt Davis	2	1	90.2%	3.06	-0.7

Full schedule · 72 regular + 2 playoff

Recent Full schedule

Date	Opp	Result	Goals	xG
2025-10-11	vs BAK	W	7–6	4.2–2.9
2025-10-18	@ BAK	L	1–2	1.4–2.4
2025-10-22	vs CV	L	3–6	2.6–3.7
2025-10-24	vs MIL	L	2–6	3.2–2.7
2025-10-25	vs MIL	W	3–2	3.2–1.9
2025-10-29	@ SD	L	0–3	2.5–3.5
2025-10-31	vs ONT	L	1–6	2.9–3.1
2025-11-01	vs ONT	W	4–2	2.6–2.4
2025-11-04	@ ONT	OTL	1–2	2.7–2.2
2025-11-06	@ CGY	W	4–3	2.5–2.1
2025-11-08	@ CGY	W	4–1	3.3–3.3
2025-11-11	@ ABB	W	7–0	3.9–2.4
2025-11-12	@ ABB	OTL	3–4	3.3–3.0
2025-11-15	vs ONT	W	4–3	2.9–2.3
2025-11-19	@ SD	W	5–4	2.7–2.3
2025-11-21	vs ABB	W	5–3	3.2–2.4
2025-11-22	vs ABB	W	4–3	3.7–2.3
2025-11-26	vs CGY	W	3–0	2.6–1.4
2025-11-28	@ COL	L	2–4	2.2–2.5
2025-11-29	@ COL	W	4–3	3.3–3.5
2025-12-05	vs TUC	W	4–3	2.9–3.0
2025-12-06	vs TUC	L	2–6	2.6–2.5
2025-12-10	vs SD	L	1–3	2.7–2.5
2025-12-12	@ TEX	W	3–2	2.3–2.3
2025-12-13	@ TEX	W	4–3	3.9–3.3
2025-12-17	@ CV	L	2–4	4.7–3.5
2025-12-20	@ ONT	W	4–3	2.0–5.0
2025-12-21	@ ONT	W	6–3	3.1–2.6
2025-12-27	vs ONT	L	0–3	2.6–2.1
2025-12-31	@ ONT	W	5–4	2.9–2.2
2026-01-02	@ BAK	L	1–4	3.0–3.0
2026-01-03	@ BAK	OTL	1–2	3.3–4.2
2026-01-07	@ SD	W	3–2	2.5–2.5
2026-01-10	vs BAK	W	4–3	3.9–2.6
2026-01-16	@ TUC	L	2–4	2.4–3.1
2026-01-17	@ TUC	W	4–3	3.7–1.8
2026-01-21	@ CV	L	3–4	2.3–3.0
2026-01-24	vs BAK	W	5–3	4.4–2.5
2026-01-30	vs CGY	W	5–1	4.3–2.8
2026-01-31	vs CGY	W	7–2	2.9–1.9
2026-02-04	vs CV	W	2–1	4.3–3.0
2026-02-06	@ ABB	W	7–3	2.1–3.0
2026-02-07	@ ABB	L	1–2	3.4–2.5
2026-02-14	vs HSK	L	2–4	2.5–3.4
2026-02-15	vs HSK	W	8–4	3.9–2.8
2026-02-18	@ SD	W	4–3	2.2–4.7
2026-02-21	vs CGY	OTL	3–4	3.2–4.5
2026-02-24	@ CGY	W	5–3	3.4–2.8
2026-02-25	@ CGY	W	4–2	3.6–2.7
2026-02-28	vs TUC	W	5–3	3.9–3.1
2026-03-01	vs TUC	L	4–6	3.7–3.0
2026-03-04	vs SD	W	3–2	3.9–1.7
2026-03-06	@ MIL	W	4–1	3.0–2.3
2026-03-07	@ MIL	W	3–1	2.0–3.4
2026-03-11	vs SD	W	4–1	3.1–2.7
2026-03-14	@ TUC	L	4–6	3.6–4.6
2026-03-15	@ TUC	L	4–5	5.7–3.6
2026-03-18	vs CV	W	5–1	4.4–2.3
2026-03-21	vs ABB	W	4–1	2.9–2.3
2026-03-22	vs ABB	W	4–2	3.0–2.1
2026-03-25	vs TEX	L	2–3	3.1–3.4
2026-03-28	@ CV	L	2–4	4.2–2.3
2026-03-29	@ CV	L	1–4	3.6–2.2
2026-03-31	vs TEX	L	1–2	3.7–2.5
2026-04-03	vs COL	W	6–3	3.3–2.5
2026-04-04	vs COL	L	2–4	2.2–2.3
2026-04-07	vs SD	L	2–5	3.6–2.5
2026-04-10	@ HSK	L	6–9	3.7–3.6
2026-04-11	@ HSK	L	1–4	2.6–3.5
2026-04-14	vs CV	L	1–4	3.3–2.5
2026-04-17	@ BAK	L	2–5	4.0–4.3
2026-04-18	vs BAK	W	4–3	3.4–3.5
2026-04-22	@ HSKPlayoff	OTL	4–5	2.1–3.3
2026-04-24	@ HSKPlayoff	L	1–5	1.9–3.7