Download the App Image

Explaining Evander Kane’s Shots On Goal Prop Bet Result in Oilers Game 2 Win Over the Kings

Explaining Evander Kane’s Shots On Goal Prop Bet Result in Oilers Game 2 Win Over the Kings article feature image
Credit:

Photo by Curtis Comeau/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images. Pictured: Evander Kane

Prop bettors were left frustrated and confused when bets on the over for Evander Kane’s Shots On Goal were graded as losers Wednesday night.

The prop was listed at 3.5 at sportsbooks for Edmonton’s game against Los Angeles. Kane scored twice — both in the third period — in a 6-0 rout.

According to the NHL.com box score, Kane finished with three SOG to fall short of his prop. Yet, the play-by-play seemingly showed Kane shooting four times on net.

Which one was it?

The play-by-play log on the NHL’s website shows Kane getting two shot attempts on goal in the first period. He was held without a shot in the second period. He then scored twice in that final period.

That equals four, right?

Not exactly.

An NHL spokesperson confirmed the correct stat is three SOG.

“His first goal was judged to be an own goal directed into the net by the actions of a Kings player. When an own goal is deemed to have occurred, no shot on goal is recorded, and no assists can be awarded on the play,” the spokesperson told Action Network.

Over 3.5 Shots On Goal at FanDuel came with +112 odds.

Official statistics on a game-to-game basis are under more of a microscope than ever before as legalized sports betting spreads across the country. Questionable statistics and corrections were happening on almost a nightly basis during the NBA regular season, which Action Network covered on multiple occasions.

Sportsbooks even changed their tune. Most house rules say sportsbooks will pay out bets according to the official stats at the conclusion of games. However, some such as FanDuel, later paid out stat corrections.

That won’t be the case here. No statistical error took place — just a confusing rule some might know about.

How would you rate this article?