Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater

Breakdown · DAL at WPG

Stars hold off the Jets

FinalThu, Oct 9

The verdict · earned

The Stars earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

DAL 5 · WPG 4

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:20 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

Dallas controlled the game through volume and accuracy, then barely held on. The Stars held 58% of expected goals (4.89–3.59 xG)—a 16-point advantage that should have yielded more than a one-goal cushion. High-danger chances finished even at 7-7: Winnipeg found the most dangerous spots to generate offense despite being dominated in the shot battle overall.

Dallas's edge was sharpest in quality. The Stars averaged 0.084 xG per shot versus Winnipeg's 0.064, meaning Dallas consistently found better ice real estate. That quality advantage, combined with a volume edge (37 on goal to 25), should have been decisive.

C. Hellebuyck (0.865 SV%, 32 of 37) outplayed J. Oettinger (0.840 SV%, 21 of 25) by a meaningful margin, yet Dallas won. Superior goaltending couldn't overcome Dallas's rebound dominance—the Stars converted 2 of 6 chances versus Winnipeg's 1 of 3, showing superior net-front work. Rush goals were even at 3-3, though Dallas generated more opportunities (32 vs. 26).

Kyle Connor's wrist shot from the high slot in the third period punctuated the action. Dallas's shot quality and efficiency proved decisive in a contest where Winnipeg stayed competitive despite the underlying imbalance.

#55 M. Scheifele — 3A in 21:16
#81 K. Connor — 3G in 19:45
#96 M. Rantanen — 1G, 2A in 18:48

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 9

DAL

WPG

Stars hold off the Jets

Chances 4.9 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

4.89

WPG

3.59

58% of the chances42%

The board read DAL 5, WPG 4. The chances read DAL 4.9, WPG 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

DAL

+0.1

goals above expected

DAL4.89 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG3.59 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 03:15DALM. Rantanen1–0
P1 06:19WPGK. Connor1–1
P1 15:24DALN. Lundkvist2–1
P3 01:01DALJ. RobertsonPP3–1
P3 01:35DALT. Seguin4–1
P3 03:23DALW. Johnston5–1
P3 09:53WPGM. BarronSH5–2

+2 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

DAL

49 shots

Final

85 shots

WPG

36 shots

DAL WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALWPG

1 / 7

2.16 xG

High danger

2 / 7

1.54 xG

3 / 21

2.19 xG

Medium

1 / 12

1.51 xG

1 / 30

0.54 xG

Low

1 / 37

0.54 xG

High-danger looks: DAL 1 of 7, WPG 2 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

C. Hellebuyck

−0.1

WPG · 32/37

J. Oettinger

−0.4

DAL · 21/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Stars hold off the Jets

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 9–7

03:15DALM. Rantanen(R. Hintz, S. Steel)1–0
06:19WPGK. Connor(M. Scheifele, G. Vilardi)1–1
15:24DALN. Lundkvist(M. Rantanen, J. Robertson)2–1

2ndshots 17–7no goals

3rdshots 11–11

01:01DALJ. Robertsonpower play(M. Rantanen, R. Hintz)3–1
01:35DALT. Seguin(M. Duchene, T. Harley)4–1
03:23DALW. Johnston(N. Lundkvist, T. Harley)5–1
09:53WPGM. Barronshorthanded5–2
11:09WPGK. Connorshorthanded(M. Scheifele, D. DeMelo)5–3
16:57WPGK. Connor(M. Scheifele, D. DeMelo)5–4

score reads DAL–WPG

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.89

DAL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.015

DAL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

50.9%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.89Expected goals3.59

DAL 58% of the chance quality

37Shots on goal25

7High-danger chances7

58All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: DAL 46% · WPG 54%

Faceoffs · WPG won40%off48%neu55%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL1 / 7 · 2.16 xG

WPG2 / 7 · 1.54 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL3 / 21 · 2.19 xG

WPG1 / 12 · 1.51 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL1 / 30 · 0.54 xG

WPG1 / 37 · 0.54 xG

DAL went 1-for-7 from high danger on 2.16 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

5 G · 4.89 xG · +0.1

WPG

4 G · 3.59 xG · +0.4

0123456

DAL finished +0.1 against expected, WPG +0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

WRIST4/31

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/4

SNAP1/4

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/9

WPG

WRIST3/22

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/3

SNAP0/2

BACKHAND1/2

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/20

DAL

WPG

Off the rush

3 G on 32

2.88 xG

3 G on 26

2.53 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 6

0.77 xG

1 G on 3

0.51 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 4-for-31, WPG 3-for-22. DAL 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. Oettinger

DAL · 21/25 · .840

-0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/71.5-0.5

Medium1/121.5+0.5

Low1/370.5-0.5

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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 32/37 · .865

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/72.2+1.2

Medium3/212.2-0.8

Low1/300.5-0.5

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

49 shots

Final

85 shots

WPG

36 shots

DAL WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, WPG 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. Scheifele

#55 · C · —

0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 21:16 on ice · +2

K. Connor

#81 · L · —

3 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 19:45 on ice · +1

M. Rantanen

#96 · R · —

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:48 on ice · -1

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, 12:27 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

Dallas and Winnipeg project to the same 3.1 expected goals, putting the Stars at exactly 51% win probability — a pick'em with a hair on it.

The underlying advantage runs to Dallas. The Stars control 52.1% of 5v5 expected goals against Winnipeg's 48.9%, but the Corsi split (Dallas 47.1%, Winnipeg 49.0%) shows the Jets can still manufacture chances through volume. Dallas's edge is real but narrow.

Where Dallas is most exposed: PDO. The Stars are running 1.024, well above equilibrium, which means some regression is coming. Winnipeg sits at 0.998 — dead average — so the luck is running one direction.

The Robertson Assignment

Winnipeg's first job is Jason Robertson. The Stars' left wing has 25 goals on 0.96 expected goals per 60 minutes, shooting at 12.4%. Robertson has only two high-danger goals, a surprisingly soft touch for his volume, but he's the core player who separates preseason projection from result. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8 goals) runs on a similar current — 7.6% shooting means he's overdue — and both will demand Winnipeg's full attention.

The Niederreiter Assignment

Dallas faces the inverse problem with Nino Niederreiter. The Jets' right wing owns 0.87 expected goals per 60 and just six goals, held back by 8.6% shooting. Three high-danger markers suggest his scoring chances are genuine; Dallas has to assume he's next. Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25 goals, 13.0% shooting, 2 HD goals) is the other Jets engine — 30 assists means he's doing more than just shooting.

The Myers Problem

The vulnerability that stands out: Tyler Myers. Winnipeg's defenseman is on ice for 2.79 expected goals against per 60 minutes — the kind of number that invites targeted offense. Fifty-three high-danger shots have come against him this season. A sharp Dallas forecheck can make him the matchup.

This is a game where the model sees two equal teams and the process — xG%, PDO, matchup assignment — decides the outcome. Dallas has the better underlying play and the hot hand. Winnipeg plays at home and has the healthier luck profile. It's a true coin flip with one small edge.

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

DAL 51%

51%

DAL

Model favorite

51%

49%

DAL50WPG

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 3.1–3.1 WPG; 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

DAL← edge

edge →WPG

52.1%48.9%

47.1%49.0%

3.102.97

2.863.10

3.332.79

2.713.12

1.0240.998

DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 0.998) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

DAL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

WPG

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALWPG

Shutdown Assignment: Jets

Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Robertson (25G, 0.96 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

TACTICALDAL

Shutdown Assignment: Stars

Key matchup: Neutralize Nino Niederreiter (6G, 0.87 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

WARNINGDAL

Exploitable minutes: Tyler Myers

Tyler Myers is on ice for 2.79 xGA/60 and 53 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Tyler Myers's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGWPG

Exploitable minutes: Colin Miller

Colin Miller is on ice for 3.07 xGA/60 and 15 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Colin Miller's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Stars own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 48.9%.

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Stars own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 48.9%.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page