Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater

Breakdown · DAL at COL

Stars steal one from the Avalanche against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Oct 11

The verdict · stolen

The Stars stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.52–4.74 and won anyway.

DAL 5 · COL 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:01 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

Colorado dominated in underlying metrics: 65% of expected goals at 5v5, 64% of shot attempts (39–22), and 8–4 in high-danger chances. Dallas won 5-4 in a shootout anyway. This was a heist.

J. Oettinger made 35 saves on 39 shots (0.897 SV%, +0.74 vs expected). S. Wedgewood made 18 saves on 22 shots (0.818 SV%, -1.48 vs expected). Oettinger bailed out Dallas; Wedgewood couldn't keep up.

On the rush, both teams scored 3 goals—Dallas on 21 chances, Colorado on 35. Dallas also converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%). The Stars' efficiency in high-leverage situations overcame Colorado's volume. Mikko Rantanen's wrist shot from the high slot in the shootout ended it, but Dallas's precision had already won the night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Oct 11

DAL

COL

Stars steal one from the Avalanche against the run of play

Chances 2.5 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

2.52

COL

4.74

35% of the chances65%

The board read DAL 5, COL 4. The chances read DAL 2.5, COL 4.7.

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

Luck check

DAL

+2.5

goals above expected

DAL2.52 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

COL4.74 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Stars scored 2.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 18:51DALT. Harley1–0
P2 03:54COLM. Necas1–1
P2 10:07COLG. Brindley1–2
P2 15:22DALN. Bastian2–2
P2 18:25DALJ. Robertson3–2
P3 00:34COLA. Lehkonen3–3
P3 01:58DALW. Johnston4–3

+4 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

DAL

36 shots

Final

97 shots

COL

61 shots

DAL COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

shots · 6 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALCOL

2 / 4

0.92 xG

High danger

3 / 8

1.87 xG

1 / 10

1.09 xG

Medium

1 / 19

1.84 xG

1 / 27

0.52 xG

Low

0 / 57

1.03 xG

The Stars buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Oettinger

+0.7

DAL · 35/39

D-

S. Wedgewood

−1.5

COL · 18/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Stars steal one from the Avalanche against the run of play

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 5–14

18:51DALT. Harley(M. Rantanen, N. Lundkvist)1–0

2ndshots 6–8

03:54COLM. Necas(N. MacKinnon, S. Malinski)1–1
10:07COLG. Brindley(V. Olofsson)1–2
15:22DALN. Bastian(E. Lindell, M. Heiskanen)2–2
18:25DALJ. Robertson(T. Harley, I. Lyubushkin)3–2

3rdshots 11–16

00:34COLA. Lehkonen(N. MacKinnon, M. Necas)3–3
01:58DALW. Johnston4–3
10:46COLN. MacKinnonpower play(M. Necas, B. Burns)4–4

OTshots 0–1no goals

00:00DALJ. Robertsonpower play4–4
00:00COLV. Nichushkinpower play4–4
00:00DALM. Rantanenpower play4–4

score reads DAL–COL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.52

DAL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.050

DAL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

32.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.52Expected goals4.74

COL 65% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal39

4High-danger chances8

41All attempts (Corsi)84

Adjusted for score: DAL 33% · COL 67%

Faceoffs · COL won64%off62%neu23%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL2 / 4 · 0.92 xG

COL3 / 8 · 1.87 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL1 / 10 · 1.09 xG

COL1 / 19 · 1.84 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL1 / 27 · 0.52 xG

COL0 / 57 · 1.03 xG

COL went 3-for-8 from high danger on 1.87 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

5 G · 2.52 xG · +2.5

COL

4 G · 4.74 xG · -0.7

0123456

DAL finished +2.5 against expected, COL -0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

WRIST2/17

SNAP0/4

SLAP1/4

TIP IN1/1

BACKHAND0/7

OTHER0/8

COL

WRIST1/31

SNAP3/12

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/8

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/26

DAL

COL

Off the rush

3 G on 21

1.58 xG

3 G on 35

3.51 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.34 xG

1 G on 3

0.42 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 2-for-17, COL 1-for-31. 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 · 35/39 · .897

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/81.9-1.1

Medium1/191.8+0.8

Low0/571.0+1.0

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

S. Wedgewood

COL · 18/22 · .818

-1.5

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/40.9-1.1

Medium1/101.1+0.1

Low1/270.5-0.5

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

97 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

36 shots

Final

97 shots

COL

61 shots

DAL COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, COL 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

N. MacKinnon

#29 · C · COL

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 25:01 on ice · +2

M. Necas

#88 · C · COL

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 23:11 on ice · +2

T. Harley

#55 · D · DAL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:52 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 1:55 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 2.9–3.4 final score in Colorado's favor, giving the Avalanche 57% win probability. The case rests on underlying dominance: Colorado owns 56.6% of 5v5 expected goals to Dallas's 52.1%, a gap that translates to territorial control at 56.4% Corsi for. That volume edge is real, but both teams run unsustainably hot on luck — Dallas's PDO sits at 1.024, Colorado's at 1.021. Expect regression.

Artturi Lehkonen drives the Avalanche's threat. He sits at 18G 22A with a 1.11 xG/60 rate and has scored 6 high-danger goals, making him among the league's most dangerous offensive forces at 5v5. Neutralizing Lehkonen is Colorado's shutdown assignment; if Dallas can't, Colorado's edge in play often translates to results.

Jason Robertson carries Dallas's matchup burden. His 25 goals and 0.96 xG/60 come with just 2 high-danger goals — a sign his 12.4% conversion rate is doing heavy lifting. Colorado must eliminate him, because when a shooter runs above his underlying play, eliminating secondary chances matters more than volume. Michael Bunting offers a secondary threat at 0.83 xG/60 with 8 goals and 7.6% shooting, also outperforming offensive generation.

Ross Colton rounds Colorado's top tier at 1.10 xG/60 with 7 goals, 15 assists, and 1 high-danger goal. The gap between Colton's xG rate and Robertson's matters — Colton's 4.9% shooting suggests regression risk, while Robertson's 12.4% could swing either way.

Defensively, the edges thin. Tyler Myers represents Dallas's weak link; Nazem Kadri is Colorado's, though calling him a liability undersells his overall impact. This isn't a game decided in the defensive zone — it's decided by whether Colorado's play dominance converts faster than Dallas's hot shooting sustains.

The verdict holds if Colorado maintains possession and limits the Stars' chances off the rush. Dallas wins if Robertson and Bunting sustain their rates and the top line generates offense in spurts. With PDO regression likely for both sides, the team controlling play wins.

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

COL 57%

57%

COL

Model favorite

43%

57%

DAL50COL

COL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.9–3.4 COL; 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 →COL

52.1%56.6%

47.1%56.4%

3.103.59

2.862.76

3.333.63

2.712.40

1.0241.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.021) 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

COL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALCOL

Shutdown Assignment: Avalanche

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

TACTICALDAL

Shutdown Assignment: Stars

Key matchup: Neutralize Artturi Lehkonen (18G, 1.11 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

STRENGTHCOL

Artturi Lehkonen drives the Avalanche offense

Artturi Lehkonen: 18G 22A, 1.11 xG/60, 6 high-danger 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.

Where the edges live

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 52.1%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 52.1%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — 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

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page