Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Thu, Oct 9 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at DET

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Red Wings

FinalThu, Oct 9
MTLMontreal Canadiens5DETDetroit Red Wings1
The verdict · stolen

The Canadiens stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.71–3.96 and won anyway.

MTL 5 · DET 1
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:09 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Detroit controlled 70% of expected goals and lost 5-1. That scoreline reflects one man's domination, not the balance of play.

The Red Wings generated 31 shot attempts to Montreal's 17 and an xG advantage of 3.96-1.71 (70-30 split). Every metric screamed Detroit. Except the one that matters. J. Dobes stopped 30 of 31 shots at 0.968 SV%, turning a +2.96 advantage into a theft. J. Gibson let in 8 of 13 for Detroit, finishing at 0.615—a -3.69 crater—before C. Talbot took over and stopped all four he faced.

Detroit had the better chances. They generated 0.065 xG per shot versus Montreal's 0.045, a decisive edge in shot quality. High-danger scoring chances favored Detroit 6-3. And yet they left the ice with nothing to show for it, going 0-6 in those situations. Montreal, meanwhile, scored two goals from low-danger spots and three off the rush on just 17 chances—a deadly conversion rate.

Juraj Slafkovský's snap shot from the slot at 17:12 of the second period marked the inflection point. Montreal capitalized from there, while Detroit's offense continued to find only leather.

This was a heist in the truest sense: the superior team was outscored because one goaltender was immovable and the other was not. Detroit created better opportunities, crashed the net effectively (three rebound chances, zero conversions), and still walked away with nothing. Montreal played the percentages and punished every mistake. The analytics wanted a different result. J. Dobes disagreed.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 9
MTL
5
DET
1

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Red Wings

Chances 1.7 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
1.71
DET
3.96
30% of the chances70%

The board read MTL 5, DET 1. The chances read MTL 1.7, DET 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
+3.3
goals above expected
MTL1.71 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
DET3.96 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canadiens scored 3.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:50DETD. LarkinPP0–1
  2. P1 10:14MTLZ. Bolduc1–1
  3. P1 12:43MTLO. Kapanen2–1
  4. P1 19:53MTLM. Matheson3–1
  5. P2 05:19MTLA. Carrier4–1
  6. P2 17:12MTLJ. SlafkovskýPP5–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
25 shots
5
Final
69 shots
DET
44 shots
1
MTL attackDET attack
MTL DET Goal
25
shots · 5 in
44
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLDET
2 / 3
0.66 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.57 xG
1 / 6
0.56 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.94 xG
2 / 29
0.49 xG
Low
0 / 38
0.45 xG

The Red Wings went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Dobes
+3.0
MTL · 30/31
A
C. Talbot
+1.7
DET · 4/4
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Red Wings

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 9–11
  1. 03:50DETD. Larkinpower play(P. Kane, M. Seider)0–1
  2. 10:14MTLZ. Bolduc(B. Gallagher, M. Matheson)1–1
  3. 12:43MTLO. Kapanen(A. Newhook, I. Demidov)2–1
  4. 19:53MTLM. Matheson(N. Suzuki, N. Dobson)3–1
2ndshots 5–11
  1. 05:19MTLA. Carrier(A. Xhekaj, B. Gallagher)4–1
  2. 17:12MTLJ. Slafkovskýpower play(C. Caufield, N. Suzuki)5–1
3rdshots 3–9no goals

    score reads MTL–DET

    Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
    Process vs result

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    1.71
    MTL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +3.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.115
    MTL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    38.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.71Expected goals3.96
    DET 70% of the chance quality
    17Shots on goal31
    3High-danger chances6
    38All attempts (Corsi)61
    Adjusted for score: MTL 34% · DET 66%
    Faceoffs · DET won60%off67%neu42%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MTL2 / 3 · 0.66 xG
    DET0 / 6 · 1.57 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MTL1 / 6 · 0.56 xG
    DET1 / 17 · 1.94 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MTL2 / 29 · 0.49 xG
    DET0 / 38 · 0.45 xG

    DET went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.57 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
    The luck layer

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MTL
    5 G · 1.71 xG · +3.3
    DET
    1 G · 3.96 xG · -3.0
    0123456

    MTL finished +3.3 against expected, DET -3.0.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MTL
    SNAP2/8
    WRIST3/10
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/1
    POKE0/0
    BACKHAND0/0
    OTHER0/13
    DET
    SNAP1/17
    WRIST0/13
    SLAP0/8
    TIP IN0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/0
    POKE0/1
    BACKHAND0/1
    OTHER0/17
    MTL
    DET
    Off the rush
    3 G on 17
    1.33 xG
    1 G on 29
    3.26 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 1
    0.26 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.46 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: MTL went 2-for-8, DET 1-for-17. MTL scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
    New to these numbers?

    Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

    The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

    xG
    Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
    HD
    High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
    Corsi
    Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
    Adj.
    Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
    GSAx
    Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
    PDO
    Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
    Shot by shot

    In the net

    Graded on goals saved above expected
    J. Dobes
    MTL · 30/31 · .968
    +3.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.6+1.6
    Medium1/171.9+0.9
    Low0/380.5+0.5

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    J. Gibson
    DET · 8/13 · .615
    -3.3
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/30.7-1.3
    Medium1/60.6-0.4
    Low2/290.5-1.5

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    C. Talbot
    DET · 4/4 · 1.000
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/30.7-1.3
    Medium1/60.6-0.4
    Low2/290.5-1.5

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    69 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MTL
    25 shots
    5
    Final
    69 shots
    DET
    44 shots
    1
    MTL attackDET attack
    MTL DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, DET right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

    Ranked from the box score

    Three stars

    Points first
    Three stars · computed, not voted
    M. Matheson
    #8 · D · —
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:22 on ice · +1
    N. Suzuki
    #14 · C · —
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:46 on ice · +1
    B. Gallagher
    #11 · R · —
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 14:03 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Oct 9
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:13 AMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

    The model projects a 3.2–3.4 goal game with the Red Wings at 54% win probability — essentially a coin flip.

    Five-on-five, Detroit holds a thin edge: 50.9% expected goals against Montreal's 49.7%, and 49.2% shot attempts versus 48.2%. But Montreal is running hot — a 1.019 PDO means they're converting 3.2 percent above expected, and that typically regresses. Detroit sits at 0.986, positioned for positive regression if the underlying play stays clean. (Rates are from 2025-26; the 2026-27 sample is too small yet.)

    The shutdown assignments cut differently. Detroit must contain Cole Caufield: 33 goals at 0.97 xG per 60, but only 1 high-danger finish — he's finishing outside the home-run area. Montreal must neutralize Alex DeBrincat: 17 goals at 0.88 xG/60 on a 9.0% shooting rate.

    Montreal has an exposed weakness. Mike Matheson faces 2.90 expected goals against per 60 with 78 high-danger shots charged to him — volume that signals matchup liability for the Canadiens.

    Oliver Kapanen (0.83 xG/60, 19 goals, 17.8% shooting) supplies secondary scoring for Montreal. Marco Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 6.1% shooting) does the same for Detroit. Both are shooting below their xG rate.

    Montreal carries a 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate; Detroit mirrors this. At this sample size, it's noise.

    Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's defensive weak point — the forecheck target if Montreal generates slot chances.

    The Red Wings' 54% edge reflects real play separation, but Montreal's PDO is the volatility factor. If the hot hand cools, the forecast narrows sharply.

    Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DET 54%
    54%
    DET
    Model favorite
    46%
    54%
    MTL50DET

    DET by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 3.2–3.4 DET; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

    Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
    Season rates · 5v5

    Tale of the tape

    NHL stats API · our xG
    MTL← edge
    edge →DET
    49.7%50.9%
    48.2%49.2%
    3.283.22
    3.323.10
    3.402.91
    3.063.10
    1.0190.986

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.986) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    MTL
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    DET
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.019
    MTL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.986
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    TACTICALDET

    Shutdown Assignment: Red Wings

    Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    TACTICALMTL

    Shutdown Assignment: Canadiens

    Key matchup: Neutralize Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    WARNINGMTL

    Exploitable minutes: Mike Matheson

    Mike Matheson is on ice for 2.90 xGA/60 and 78 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Mike Matheson's shifts with the top line.

    WARNINGDET

    Exploitable minutes: Axel Sandin-Pellikka

    Axel Sandin-Pellikka is on ice for 2.83 xGA/60 and 46 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Axel Sandin-Pellikka's shifts with the top line.

    Regression watch
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    MTL
    Cole Caufield33G 16A
    0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
    Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
    0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
    DET
    Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
    0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
    Marco Kasper7G 8A
    0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page