Sorokin Stands Tall, but Islanders Squander Two Leads in Eight-Round Shootout Loss to Sharks

By J.J. Pavlick | Elmont, NY | November 10, 2026 |

SAN JOSE, CA — Ilya Sorokin gave the New York Islanders every opportunity to leave California with two points Monday night. He absorbed another heavy workload, tracked traffic through the slot, turned away dangerous looks from Macklin Celebrini, and held San Jose scoreless through seven shootout rounds. Yet when the eighth round ended, the Islanders were left with a familiar and increasingly uncomfortable result: another game in which their goaltender had done enough to win and the skaters in front of him had not.

The San Jose Sharks defeated New York 3–2 at SAP Center when rookie Ivar Stenberg beat Sorokin in the eighth round of a shootout, the only successful attempt by either club. Yaroslav Askarov stopped all eight Islanders shooters after making 30 saves through regulation and overtime, while Sorokin finished with 37 saves on 39 shots. The defeat stretched New York’s winless streak to four games (0-2-2) and sent the Islanders into the remainder of their California trip still searching for a complete, sustainable 60-minute performance.

This was not a night when New York was overwhelmed from opening faceoff to final horn. The Islanders generated quality chances, scored first, reclaimed the lead on the power play, and had opportunities to win in the third period. That is precisely what made the outcome so frustrating. The problem was not an absence of competitive stretches; it was the inability to connect those stretches into the kind of disciplined, controlled hockey required to close out a road game.

Two Leads, Two Answers From San Jose

Ben Hutton gave the Islanders the start they wanted at 6:14 of the first period. Bo Horvat carried the puck into the offensive zone, slowed the play to create a passing lane, and moved it to Simon Holmstrom. Holmstrom found Hutton arriving near the back post, and the defenseman finished the sequence for his first goal with New York. It was the kind of attack that makes a defense turn its shoulders: a controlled entry, a change of pace, and a player arriving in space rather than standing still waiting for a puck.

San Jose Answers the Islanders’ Fast Start

The lead lasted until 16:41, when San Jose punished a failed Islanders clearing attempt. Ty Dellandrea kept Logan Stanley’s effort from escaping along the wall, Tyler Toffoli put a puck toward the net, and Stenberg supplied the redirection past Sorokin. The play illustrated the thin margin between a routine exit and an extended defensive-zone shift. When a puck that should leave the zone stays in, the defending five must reset their coverage while the attacking team can immediately send bodies and shots toward the middle.

Eklund Restores the Lead Before Another Sharks Response

New York responded early in the second period. At 1:11, rookie Victor Eklund finished a quick power-play exchange after Brayden Schenn received the puck from Matthew Schaefer and delivered it into the scoring area. Eklund’s sixth goal of the season was his third in as many games, and it demonstrated what the Islanders can accomplish when their puck movement forces defenders to react instead of allowing the penalty kill to remain set.

San Jose tied it again at 12:12. Dmitry Orlov’s initial attempt produced a rebound, and Toffoli’s follow-up shot deflected off Adam Pelech and into the net, six seconds after a Sharks power play had expired. The deflection was unfortunate, but the larger sequence mattered: San Jose had kept the Islanders under pressure, created a second opportunity, and turned a loose puck into a goal. Twice New York had moved in front. Twice it failed to make the Sharks chase for very long.

Sorokin Cannot Be the Entire Defensive Structure

The shot count tells an important part of this story. San Jose put 39 pucks on Sorokin; New York managed 32 on Askarov. Those totals do not mean every Sharks shot was dangerous, but they reinforce a pattern the Islanders cannot afford to normalize. Sorokin can erase mistakes with his positioning, lateral movement, and patience around the crease. He cannot be expected to make repeated high-leverage saves while the team continually asks him to survive long stretches without clean exits or sustained offensive-zone possession.

New York won 32 of 55 faceoffs, an advantage that should have provided more opportunities to dictate possession. But faceoff wins only matter when the next pass, support route, and breakout are executed. A clean draw followed by a failed wall play can put a team right back where it started. Against a San Jose group eager to snap its own losing streak, the Islanders needed more than isolated puck recoveries; they needed connected five-man exits and better management of the puck through the neutral zone.

That is where Sorokin’s night becomes both impressive and concerning. He repeatedly kept the score level while the game remained open, including a crucial stop on Celebrini during a difficult third-period special-teams sequence. He then stopped San Jose’s first seven shootout attempts. At some point, however, the burden has to shift from the goaltender making the next save to the skaters creating the next goal.

The Third Period Was There for the Taking

At 2–2 entering the third, the Islanders had a straightforward assignment: play on their toes, establish the forecheck, and make Askarov work through traffic. They did generate dangerous early looks. DeBoer later pointed to several high-quality chances in the opening five minutes, opportunities that could have changed the direction of the game before San Jose settled back into its structure.

That stretch is important because it prevents an overly simple reading of the loss. New York did not spend the entire final period hanging on. The Islanders had a window to seize the game and could not finish. In a tight matchup, the difference between a dangerous chance and a goal is often a small detail: arriving a half-step sooner at the far post, getting a rebound off the goaltender’s pads rather than into a corner, or making the extra pass before the defending stick closes the lane.

“That’s the game right there. We reset, came out for the third, 2–2 game, twenty minutes to win it, and I loved how we started. I think we had five or six Grade-A looks in the first five minutes of the third period. But you got to stick one of those in the net.”

Pete DeBoer, Islanders head coach

Quality Chances Without the Finishing Touch

Finishing is not merely a matter of telling players to shoot more. It involves creating second and third chances after the initial attempt. When the puck goes toward the net, someone has to win inside position, recover the rebound, and keep the opposition from making an uncontested first pass. The Islanders found moments of offensive rhythm, but not enough sustained pressure to force the Sharks into the mistakes that often decide close games.

Discipline Undermines a Four-Minute Opportunity

The third period also exposed a problem with discipline and situational awareness. Mason Marchment’s double minor for roughing might have provided New York with an extended advantage, but penalties to Ondrej Palat and Anthony Duclair during the same sequence instead turned the situation into a four-on-three penalty kill. The Islanders survived it, helped again by Sorokin, yet an opportunity to press for a winner became another stretch spent defending.

“I think we both played smart for stretches, and we both played really badly for stretches. When we were playing smart early in the game, I loved our start, and then we got totally away from what was working for us and got exposed as soon as we did for the rest of the first period. In the second period, I thought we played a smarter period, and then we came out in the third, and I thought in the first ten minutes, we had four or five Grade-A’s to take the lead. Then you get the double-minor power play, and you take two penalties on it. So the self-inflicted parts of the game where we didn’t stick with it cost us.”

Pete DeBoer, Islanders head coach

What DeBoer Liked From The Team

DeBoer pointed to roughly five or six high-quality chances in the opening five minutes of the third period. His assessment makes the missed opportunity plain: New York had its best chance to take charge of the game before the shootout, and its finishing failed to match the quality of its entries and chances.

DeBoer offered a more complete explanation of that decisive stretch. With the game tied entering the third, he liked the Islanders’ start and counted five or six Grade-A opportunities in the opening five minutes. His conclusion was simple: one of those chances had to become a goal. That assessment shifts the focus away from the shootout and toward the period when New York had an opportunity to seize control. In the NHL’s postgame reporting, he recalled several Grade-A opportunities in the opening five minutes and emphasized that the Islanders needed to convert one of them. That assessment matters because it places responsibility where it belongs: the Islanders did create the looks they needed, but they did not turn their best offensive stretch into a lead.

The Assessment

DeBoer’s full assessment made the sequence clearer: he liked the Islanders’ start to the third period, counted five or six Grade-A chances in the opening five minutes and believed the failure to convert one was decisive. He also distinguished this uneven effort from the team’s stronger performance against Carolina and its poor showing against New Jersey. Taken together, those comments were not a complaint about bad luck in the shootout; they were an indictment of New York’s inability to sustain its best hockey.

New York finished 1-for-4 on the power play and killed all four San Jose advantages. On paper, those are acceptable special-teams results. In the context of the game, however, the lost opportunity was about momentum and decision-making, not simply percentages.

A Goaltending Duel Settled in the Eighth Round

Overtime could not separate the teams, setting up a shootout that became a test of patience for both goaltenders. Askarov denied Kyle Palmieri, Horvat, Emil Heineman, Eklund, Schenn, Schaefer, Holmstrom, and Anthony Duclair. Sorokin matched him for seven rounds, denying a San Jose lineup that included Celebrini, Will Smith, and Michael Misa.

“The goalie makes some big saves. We’re just a little loose there, and a couple chances we give up, so we got to clean those up. But Asky made some big saves, and a goalie makes big saves at timely moments, and I thought he did that tonight.”

Ryan Warsofsky, Sharks head coach

Warsofsky emphasized the significance of ending the losing streak and said he recognized the work habits San Jose wanted to establish both in possession and without the puck. His interpretation contrasted sharply with DeBoer’s concern about the Islanders’ inconsistency: one bench saw a step toward a standard; the other saw a standard slipping away.

San Jose’s Bench

San Jose’s bench saw more than a fortunate shootout winner. Warsofsky said the Sharks had begun to reestablish their identity in their work with and without the puck, an assessment that fits the way they repeatedly fought back after trailing. Marchment, meanwhile, emphasized Stenberg’s smooth skill and the unusual confidence he shows carrying the puck as a young player. Those observations help explain why San Jose stayed dangerous even when the Islanders had the lead. The Sharks’ side of the goaltending duel also deserves more than a passing mention. San Jose forward Mason Marchment called Askarov “a brick wall back there,” while coach Ryan Warsofsky highlighted the difficult chances his goalie stopped in the third period and shootout. Askarov’s save on Horvat during a two-on-one in overtime was especially significant: it prevented the Islanders from ending the game before Stenberg ever reached the eighth round.

Warsofsky’s account was almost the inverse of DeBoer’s. He emphasized the relief of finally collecting two points after a difficult run, then pointed to the Sharks’ work with and without the puck as evidence that the team had begun to recover its identity. The Sharks were not flawless; they had to erase two deficits. But their coach saw a group finding ways to stay connected, whereas DeBoer saw one whose good stretches ended too quickly.

Stenberg Delivers the Decisive Shootout Goal

Stenberg finally ended it in the eighth round, moving in from the left side, changing his angle toward the middle and beating Sorokin with a wrist shot. The goal gave the Sharks their first victory in six games and denied the Islanders the extra point that had been available to them for more than 65 minutes of hockey.

“Yeah, I’ve been missing two times before, so yeah, happy to see the puck go in.”

Ivar Stenberg, Sharks forward

Stenberg explained that he approached Sorokin with multiple possible finishes rather than committing too early. His comments also reflected how badly San Jose needed a win after a difficult stretch. The shootout goal was the finish, but the confidence to keep attacking after earlier misses was part of the story.

Stenberg’s Goal

Stenberg’s reaction reflected how much pressure had built on the other bench. He acknowledged missing twice before in shootouts and described the relief of finally seeing one go in. He also explained that he had options as he approached Sorokin, an important detail in a shootout decided by patience and deception rather than a rushed release. “I’ve missed two times before, so I was happy to see the puck go in,” he told reporters afterward. San Jose needed the victory to end a five-game skid, and his willingness to attack Sorokin with pace and change his angle gave the Sharks the finish New York could not find.

Stenberg explained that he had missed on his two previous shootout attempts and was relieved to finally score. He said he had multiple options as he approached Sorokin. That matters because the winning attempt was not a blind shot: he attacked with speed, changed his angle, and forced Sorokin to account for more than one possible release. Marchment separately praised the youngster’s skill and confidence carrying the puck, reinforcing why San Jose trusted him in that moment.

Stenberg acknowledged afterward that he had missed on previous shootout attempts and was relieved to convert this one. San Jose coach Ryan Warsofsky emphasized the importance of getting two points and seeing his team play with a recognizable identity both with and without the puck. For the Sharks, the result was a needed release. For the Islanders, it was another reminder that a shootout loss can still reveal problems that began long before the skills competition.

Shootout Preparation and the Bigger Picture

The Islanders should not treat eight failed shootout attempts as the only reason they lost. Shootouts are inherently volatile, and Askarov deserves credit for his composure. The more revealing question is why New York needed a shootout at all after holding two regulation leads and generating opportunities to finish the game earlier.

“We’ve got a lot of data. We practice in practice. We keep track of it, believe it or not. There’s a lot of data going back to these guys when they were in junior, lefties, righties, how the goalie goes against certain shooters, what we’re looking for. So I would say there’s a lot of different factors in it.”

Ryan Warsofsky, Sharks head coach

Hutton and Eklund Offered Genuine Positives

There were individual performances worth recognizing. Hutton, appearing in only his second game since joining the Islanders, contributed far more than a goal. He registered four shots and two hits in 14:28 of ice time, and his willingness to activate into the play created the opening score. DeBoer singled out his steadiness afterward, a meaningful endorsement on a night when the coach questioned the consistency of the group as a whole.

“I think so. I thought he was really solid tonight. I didn’t feel we got really solid play from a lot of guys tonight for 60 minutes, but I think he was one of them that gave us that.”

Pete DeBoer, Islanders head coach, on Ben Hutton

DeBoer made a pointed distinction between Hutton and the rest of the lineup. He called the defenseman “really solid tonight” and indicated that too few Islanders had given him dependable play for a full 60 minutes. The praise carried weight precisely because the coach was unwilling to extend it to the entire group. It was a revealing distinction from a coach who has been trying to build dependable habits rather than simply reward the occasional highlight. Hutton’s goal and activation were valuable; the larger test is whether the rest of the group can match that level of consistency.

Eklund’s Scoring Touch and Schaefer’s Growing Role

Eklund’s third consecutive game with a goal is another encouraging development. His power-play finish was decisive and technically clean, but the broader value is that he gives the Islanders another forward capable of finding open ice in a dangerous area and finishing quickly. He also recorded five hits, evidence that his contribution was not limited to one scoring touch.

Schaefer added a secondary assist on Eklund’s goal, reaching 76 career points and tying Rick Hampton for fourth-most among teenage NHL defensemen. His 48 career assists also moved him into a tie with Bobby Orr and Scott Stevens for seventh among teenage defensemen. Those are remarkable historical markers for a young player, and they underscore the talent New York can build around.

Yet the Islanders cannot allow those bright spots to disguise the larger team performance. A young scorer finding his confidence, a defenseman making a positive first impression, and a goaltender playing at an elite level are all useful ingredients. They do not automatically produce wins when the group struggles to maintain structure and momentum for an entire game.

Bad Dawg Sports Analysis: The Islanders Must Start Controlling Games

DeBoer’s assessment after the loss was pointed: the Islanders were better in stretches, but those stretches did not last long enough. That diagnosis fits the evidence. New York was effective when its entries were controlled, its puck support arrived on time, and its power-play passing moved San Jose’s defenders out of position. The problems surfaced when execution became disconnected, the first clearing attempt failed or the Islanders allowed the Sharks to turn one shift into several consecutive attacks.

The coach’s clearest criticism concerned the team’s own decisions. He contrasted the loss to Carolina, which he considered one of New York’s stronger efforts, with the poor performance against New Jersey and the uneven stretches in San Jose. That broader comparison matters: DeBoer was not simply reacting to one unfortunate bounce but identifying a lack of consistency across games and within them. He described the contest as one in which both clubs alternated between intelligent and poor hockey, then pointed to self-inflicted errors when the Islanders abandoned the details that were working. Jean-Gabriel Pageau also acknowledged that the team had not executed its systems and smaller responsibilities well enough, although he remained confident in the process. Those are different perspectives on the same problem: the structure is recognizable, but its execution is not yet dependable from shift to shift.

Cleaner Breakouts and Stronger Puck Support

The next adjustment is not a dramatic tactical overhaul. It is more consistent execution of the details that give a team control of the game. Defensemen need predictable support underneath the puck on retrievals. Wingers must be available on the wall without turning every exit into a stationary battle. Centers have to provide a second layer through the middle, and forwards must recognize when to place the puck behind the opposing defense instead of forcing a play through traffic.

In the offensive zone, New York needs to make its possession more expensive for opponents. That means getting bodies to the interior, recovering pucks after the first shot, and keeping defenders moving laterally. The Islanders had enough quality opportunities Monday to win. They did not generate enough follow-up pressure to make those opportunities decisive.

The Cost of Inconsistent Execution

The Islanders are now 7-6-4 after 17 games, with two standings points collected during a four-game winless stretch. The standings point in San Jose has value, particularly on the road, but it cannot become a substitute for recognizing what went wrong. This team has enough talent to beat San Jose in regulation when it plays a connected game. Monday’s result was another example of what happens when that connection comes and goes.

Horvat also challenged the group’s consistency, saying the Islanders had to return to the defensive commitment and hard reloads that defined their better early-season performances. His point was not that New York lacked the personnel to play sound hockey; it was that the team had already shown what the standard looked like and had stopped meeting it for complete games. That is a more serious warning than a simple complaint about the result.

The Details That Have to Improve

New York continues its California trip against the Los Angeles Kings on Thursday, November 12, before visiting Anaheim on Saturday. The response must begin before the next opening faceoff: cleaner breakouts, more sustained forechecking pressure, fewer self-inflicted special-teams complications, and a commitment to reducing the number of difficult saves Sorokin is asked to make.

Bad Dawg Sports Final Take: Sorokin gave the Islanders the chance to win, and the team twice put itself in position to finish the job. But a first lead is not a finished game, a strong five-minute stretch is not a complete period, and a shootout point is not enough when the same execution problems keep returning. The Islanders do not need Sorokin to become better. They need to become better in front of him.