Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Thu, Oct 9 · the slate
Breakdown · MIN at STL

Wild shut out the Blues, 5-0

FinalThu, Oct 9
MINMinnesota Wild5STLSt. Louis Blues0
The verdict · stolen

The Wild stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.22–3.32 and won anyway.

MIN 5 · STL 0
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:12 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

This was a heist. Minnesota prevailed 5–0 despite losing the expected-goals battle to St. Louis 2.22–3.32 — the Blues controlled 60% of the xG and scored nothing.

The disparity came from goaltending and execution. F. Gustavsson (MIN) saved 3.32 goals above expectation, suffocating St. Louis's chances. J. Binnington (STL) gave up 2.78 more than his expected workload justified. In high-danger situations, Minnesota converted ruthlessly: 3 for 6 (50%). St. Louis went 0 for 6 on their high-danger chances despite controlling the play. The Blues also wasted four rebound opportunities. Meanwhile, Minnesota was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 17 chances.

The goaltending chasm sealed it. F. Gustavsson turned 26 shots aside; J. Binnington faced 21 and surrendered 5, well below the workload his defense provided. Marco Rossi's wrist shot from the slot at 7:27 of the first period set the tone. Minnesota's clinical finishing and Gustavsson's athleticism dispatched a team that had controlled the play.

Three Stars

  • #12 M. Boldy — 1G, 2A in 16:54
  • #97 K. Kaprizov — 3A in 16:23
  • #38 R. Hartman — 2G in 17:52
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 9
MIN
5
STL
0

Wild shut out the Blues, 5-0

Chances 2.2 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
2.22
STL
3.32
40% of the chances60%

The board read MIN 5, STL 0. The chances read MIN 2.2, STL 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+2.8
goals above expected
MIN2.22 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.32 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild scored 2.8 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 15:54MINR. Hartman1–0
  2. P1 17:30MINM. Boldy2–0
  3. P2 12:27MINJ. Eriksson EkPP3–0
  4. P2 17:36MINR. Hartman4–0
  5. P3 07:27MINM. Rossi5–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
32 shots
5
Final
75 shots
STL
43 shots
0
MIN attackSTL attack
MIN STL Goal
32
shots · 5 in
43
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINSTL
3 / 6
1.19 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.84 xG
1 / 6
0.60 xG
Medium
0 / 18
1.96 xG
1 / 37
0.43 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.53 xG

The Blues went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
F. Gustavsson
+3.3
MIN · 26/26
F
J. Binnington
−2.8
STL · 16/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild shut out the Blues, 5-0

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 7–8
  1. 15:54MINR. Hartman(M. Johansson)1–0
  2. 17:30MINM. Boldy(K. Kaprizov, M. Rossi)2–0
2ndshots 5–14
  1. 12:27MINJ. Eriksson Ekpower play(K. Kaprizov, M. Boldy)3–0
  2. 17:36MINR. Hartman(Y. Trenin)4–0
3rdshots 9–4
  1. 07:27MINM. Rossi(K. Kaprizov, M. Boldy)5–0

score reads MIN–STL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.22
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.102
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.5%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.22Expected goals3.32
STL 60% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal26
6High-danger chances3
49All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: MIN 39% · STL 61%
Faceoffs · STL won67%off35%neu37%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN3 / 6 · 1.19 xG
STL0 / 3 · 0.84 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN1 / 6 · 0.60 xG
STL0 / 18 · 1.96 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN1 / 37 · 0.43 xG
STL0 / 40 · 0.53 xG

STL went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 1.96 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
5 G · 2.22 xG · +2.8
STL
0 G · 3.32 xG · -3.3
0123456

MIN finished +2.8 against expected, STL -3.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
WRIST3/19
SNAP1/4
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/17
STL
WRIST0/22
SNAP0/7
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/18
MIN
STL
Off the rush
2 G on 17
1.28 xG
0 G on 26
2.26 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.32 xG
0 G on 4
0.68 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 3-for-19, STL 0-for-22. MIN scored 2 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
F. Gustavsson
MIN · 26/26 · 1.000
+3.3
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.8+0.8
Medium0/182.0+2.0
Low0/400.5+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. Binnington
STL · 16/21 · .762
-2.8
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.2-1.8
Medium1/60.6-0.4
Low1/370.4-0.6

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MIN
32 shots
5
Final
75 shots
STL
43 shots
0
MIN attackSTL attack
MIN STL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, STL 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. Boldy
#12 · L · —
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:54 on ice · +2
K. Kaprizov
#97 · L · —
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 16:23 on ice · +2
R. Hartman
#38 · R · —
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 17:52 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, 12:24 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 3.1–3.1 game with the Wild at 51% win probability. A neutral prediction in a contest where small edges compound.

Minnesota's advantage lives in expected goal share: 52.0% xG% against St. Louis's 48.7%. Corsi% splits narrowly—48.5% for the Wild, 48.3% for the Blues—suggesting a game decided by deployment and execution, not raw pressure. Both teams sit near one on PDO (MIN 1.008, STL 1.000), meaning neither is over- or underperforming shooting skill relative to luck.

The Blues' defensive assignment is simple: contain Matt Boldy, Minnesota's high-volume, high-efficiency threat. Minnesota's counter is equally defined: neutralize Jimmy Snuggerud. St. Louis's depth threat is Dylan Holloway. On the Wild side, Robby Fabbri presents secondary danger—efficiency that hasn't yet translated to volume.

A weak-link exposure: Matt Kiersted's defensive impact. He's on ice for 3.56 xGA/60 and has faced 7 high-danger shots against this season. If Minnesota exploits his shifts, that's where the game breaks.

The underlying numbers favor the Wild by a small margin. Sustaining that edge across 60 minutes—and not watching it dissolve in variance—is the test. Both teams are within a goal, which means both can win this.

Players to Watch

Minnesota

  • Matt Boldy — 0.89 xG/60, 22G 18A, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting
  • Robby Fabbri — 0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A, 1 HD goal, 6.9% shooting

St. Louis

  • Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
  • Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goal, 10.8% shooting

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

MIN 51%
51%
MIN
Model favorite
51%
49%
MIN50STL

MIN by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 3.1–3.1 STL; 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
MIN← edge
edge →STL
52.0%48.7%
48.5%48.3%
3.272.80
3.022.95
3.272.80
2.873.10
1.0081.000

MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.000) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
MIN
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
STL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.008
MIN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALSTL

Shutdown Assignment: Blues

Key matchup: Neutralize Matt Boldy (22G, 0.89 xG/60, 5 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Matt Boldy (22G, 0.89 xG/60, 5 HD goals)

TACTICALMIN

Shutdown Assignment: Wild

Key matchup: Neutralize Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 0.86 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 0.86 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

WARNINGMIN

Exploitable minutes: Matt Kiersted

Matt Kiersted is on ice for 3.56 xGA/60 and 7 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Matt Kiersted's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGSTL

Exploitable minutes: Jimmy Snuggerud

Jimmy Snuggerud is on ice for 2.75 xGA/60 and 44 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Jimmy Snuggerud's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.7%.
Things to watch
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.7%.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page