Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
← Sat, Oct 18 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at WPG

C. Hellebuyck stands tall as the Jets edge the Predators

FinalSat, Oct 18
NSHNashville Predators1WPGWinnipeg Jets4
The verdict · coin flip

The Jets won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

NSH 1 · WPG 4
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:03 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

C. Hellebuyck is what turned this game. Nashville generated the better chances — 51% of expected goals, 8 high-danger opportunities — but scored once. Winnipeg converted the scraps.

C. Hellebuyck stopped 30 of 31 shots (0.968 SV%) and was perfect on dangerous chances, denying Nashville 3.36 goals beyond expected. That margin is the game. J. Saros faced 24 shots and stopped 20 — a 0.833 save percentage that underperformed a reasonable baseline by exactly the amount Winnipeg won by.

Nashville's 51% xG share (4.36 to 4.15) would normally predict a toss-up. Instead, the Jets won 4–1. The goaltending split — C. Hellebuyck's 0.968 vs. J. Saros's 0.833 — accounted for the entire margin.

Winnipeg's advantage wasn't volume. WPG held 44% of shot attempts (24 to 31), a modest edge. The edge was quality: 0.090 expected goals per shot versus Nashville's 0.056. The Jets generated 3 goals from rush chances and made their dangerous looks count. Nashville created 8 rebound opportunities and converted none. Winnipeg created 3 and converted none — but they didn't need to.

Michael Bunting's backhander from the doorstep (18:56, third period) crystallized the problem: Nashville had chances, but couldn't finish. Winnipeg didn't need many.

The Three Stars tell the rest: #19 J. Toews (2A in 15:56), #7 V. Namestnikov (1G, 1A in 13:49), and #62 N. Niederreiter (1G, 1A in 13:27) — all contributors to a rush-based attack that converted at will.

This was a goaltending game that looked like a talent gap because one goalie played like a wall.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 18
NSH
1
WPG
4

C. Hellebuyck stands tall as the Jets edge the Predators

Chances 4.4 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Jets took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
4.36
WPG
4.15
51% of the chances49%

The board read NSH 1, WPG 4. The chances read NSH 4.4, WPG 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
−0.1
goals above expected
WPG4.15 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH4.36 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Predators left 3.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:39WPGM. ScheifelePP0–1
  2. P1 10:25WPGN. Niederreiter0–2
  3. P3 05:26WPGL. Stanley0–3
  4. P3 16:52WPGV. NamestnikovPP0–4
  5. P3 18:56NSHM. Bunting1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
57 shots
1
Final
96 shots
WPG
39 shots
4
NSH attackWPG attack
NSH WPG Goal
57
shots · 1 in
39
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHWPG
0 / 6
1.30 xG
High danger
2 / 8
1.85 xG
1 / 19
2.18 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.98 xG
0 / 53
0.89 xG
Low
1 / 21
0.32 xG

The Predators went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Hellebuyck
+3.4
WPG · 30/31
C
J. Saros
+0.1
NSH · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

C. Hellebuyck stands tall as the Jets edge the Predators

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 5–11
  1. 02:39WPGM. Scheifelepower play(K. Connor, A. Iafallo)0–1
  2. 10:25WPGN. Niederreiter(V. Namestnikov, D. DeMelo)0–2
2ndshots 15–4no goals
    3rdshots 11–9
    1. 05:26WPGL. Stanley(G. Nyquist, J. Toews)0–3
    2. 16:52WPGV. Namestnikovpower play(J. Toews, N. Niederreiter)0–4
    3. 18:56NSHM. Bunting(R. O'Reilly, B. Skjei)1–4

    score reads NSH–WPG

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.15
    WPG chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.074
    WPG puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    37.1%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.36Expected goals4.15
    NSH 51% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal24
    6High-danger chances8
    78All attempts (Corsi)46
    Adjusted for score: NSH 69% · WPG 31%
    Faceoffs · WPG won33%off53%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH0 / 6 · 1.30 xG
    WPG2 / 8 · 1.85 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH1 / 19 · 2.18 xG
    WPG1 / 17 · 1.98 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH0 / 53 · 0.89 xG
    WPG1 / 21 · 0.32 xG

    NSH went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.30 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    1 G · 4.36 xG · -3.4
    WPG
    4 G · 4.15 xG · -0.1
    012345

    NSH finished -3.4 against expected, WPG -0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    WRIST0/31
    SLAP0/10
    TIP IN0/7
    BACKHAND1/4
    SNAP0/0
    DEFLECTED0/3
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/21
    WPG
    WRIST1/22
    SLAP2/5
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND1/3
    SNAP0/6
    DEFLECTED0/0
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/7
    NSH
    WPG
    Off the rush
    0 G on 32
    2.36 xG
    3 G on 28
    3.38 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 8
    1.51 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.50 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 0-for-31, WPG 1-for-22. WPG 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. Saros
    NSH · 20/24 · .833
    +0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/81.9-0.1
    Medium1/172.0+1.0
    Low1/210.3-0.7

    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 · 30/31 · .968
    +3.4
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.3+1.3
    Medium1/192.2+1.2
    Low0/530.9+0.9

    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

    96 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    57 shots
    1
    Final
    96 shots
    WPG
    39 shots
    4
    NSH attackWPG attack
    NSH WPG Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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
    J. Toews
    #19 · C · WPG
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:56 on ice
    V. Namestnikov
    #7 · C · WPG
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 13:49 on ice · +1
    N. Niederreiter
    #62 · R · WPG
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 13:27 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Oct 18
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:01 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 this one at roughly 3.1 to 3.3 goals either way, with Winnipeg at 53% win probability—as close to a pick'em as hockey gets.

    Both teams are functionally identical at 5v5. Nashville sits at 48.7% expected-goals share and 49.5% Corsi; Winnipeg counters at 48.9% xG% and 49.0% Corsi. Neither has gained ground through luck—NSH's PDO is 0.992, WPG's 0.998—so execution determines the outcome.

    The game hinges on two matchups. Nashville must suppress Nino Niederreiter (6 goals, 0.87 xG/60, 3 from high-danger range—elite volume). Winnipeg must contain Zachary L'Heureux (4 goals, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goal, shooting at 16.0%—unsustainable). Whichever team controls its matchup gains the edge.

    Beyond these assignments, depth matters. Filip Forsberg anchors 23 goals on 0.80 xG/60 for Nashville with a 13.6% shooting rate—regression is loading. Kyle Connor's 25 goals arrive on 0.83 xG/60 at 13.0% shooting, similarly vulnerable if puck luck reverts.

    Defensively, both clubs leak exposed minutes. Nashville's Jonathan Marchessault plays on ice for 3.07 xGA/60 with 40 high-danger shots against—he's the clearest target. Winnipeg's Colin Miller anchors defensive pairings that have surrendered pressure. Whoever attacks these weak links first wins real leverage.

    The tactical story: goaltending decides this. Two evenly matched rosters, nearly identical underlying metrics, no margin for error. Whoever stays sharp in net wins a game that could convincingly go either direction.

    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

    WPG 53%
    53%
    WPG
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    NSH50WPG

    WPG by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 3.1–3.3 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
    NSH← edge
    edge →WPG
    48.7%48.9%
    49.5%49.0%
    3.092.97
    3.243.10
    2.952.79
    3.263.12
    0.9920.998

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.992 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    NSH
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    WPG
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.992
    NSH 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 Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    TACTICALNSH

    Shutdown Assignment: Predators

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

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

    WARNINGNSH

    Exploitable minutes: Jonathan Marchessault

    Jonathan Marchessault is on ice for 3.07 xGA/60 and 40 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Jonathan Marchessault'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.

    Things to watch
    • Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    NSH
    Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
    0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
    Filip Forsberg23G 17A
    0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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