Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
Breakdown · EDM at DET

Red Wings hold off the Oilers

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 2 · DET 4
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:10 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 overperformed their expected goals by 0.93, converting four shots on 3.07 xG while Edmonton managed just two on 2.28. That gap between underlying quality and the scoreboard tells the story: this was never as close as the final count.

The dominance was overwhelming in every metric. Detroit controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals and held a 58% share of shot attempts (25–18 on goal). In the areas that predict wins, they were utterly in control, and a two-goal margin actually understates the gulf.

Detroit's precision sealed it. They converted 2 of 5 high-danger chances (40%) versus Edmonton's 1 of 5. On the rush, both teams scored twice apiece from 24 and 20 chances respectively, but Detroit's other edges were decisive: two goals from low-danger spots — unforgivable misses for opposing goaltending — and smart rebound hunting that produced three chances and one converted. That's not luck; that's discipline in the offensive zone.

Emmitt Finnie's wrist shot from the wing in the third period (18:38) extended Detroit's advantage when it mattered. He finished with 2 goals and 1 assist in 19:25.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 19
EDM
2
DET
4

Red Wings hold off the Oilers

Chances 2.3 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
2.28
DET
3.07
43% of the chances57%

The board read EDM 2, DET 4. The chances read EDM 2.3, DET 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+0.9
goals above expected
DET3.07 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM2.28 expected · 2 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
  1. P2 08:51DETD. Larkin0–1
  2. P2 11:54DETE. Finnie0–2
  3. P2 12:25EDMN. Philp1–2
  4. P2 17:05DETD. Larkin1–3
  5. P3 07:33EDML. Draisaitl2–3
  6. P3 18:38DETE. FinnieEN2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
31 shots
2
Final
70 shots
DET
39 shots
4
EDM attackDET attack
EDM DET Goal
31
shots · 2 in
39
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMDET
1 / 1
0.29 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.33 xG
1 / 14
1.57 xG
Medium
0 / 10
1.19 xG
0 / 29
0.42 xG
Low
2 / 46
0.56 xG

The Red Wings buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
J. Gibson
+0.3
DET · 16/18
C
S. Skinner
+0.1
EDM · 21/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings hold off the Oilers

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 3–7no goals
    2ndshots 8–10
    1. 08:51DETD. Larkin(B. Chiarot, L. Raymond)0–1
    2. 11:54DETE. Finnie(J. Bernard-Docker, D. Larkin)0–2
    3. 12:25EDMN. Philp(V. Podkolzin, B. Kulak)1–2
    4. 17:05DETD. Larkin(E. Finnie, J. Gibson)1–3
    3rdshots 7–8
    1. 07:33EDML. Draisaitl(B. Kulak, M. Ekholm)2–3
    2. 18:38DETE. Finnieempty net(L. Raymond, D. Larkin)2–4

    score reads EDM–DET

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.07
    DET chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.9
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.020
    DET puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    58.1%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.28Expected goals3.07
    DET 57% of the chance quality
    18Shots on goal25
    1High-danger chances5
    44All attempts (Corsi)61
    Adjusted for score: EDM 45% · DET 55%
    Faceoffs · DET won57%off58%neu55%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    EDM1 / 1 · 0.29 xG
    DET2 / 5 · 1.33 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    EDM1 / 14 · 1.57 xG
    DET0 / 10 · 1.19 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    EDM0 / 29 · 0.42 xG
    DET2 / 46 · 0.56 xG

    DET went 2-for-46 from low danger on 0.56 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    EDM
    2 G · 2.28 xG · -0.3
    DET
    4 G · 3.07 xG · +0.9
    012345

    EDM finished -0.3 against expected, DET +0.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    EDM
    WRIST0/8
    SNAP1/10
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN1/7
    BACKHAND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/13
    DET
    WRIST3/24
    SNAP0/8
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN1/1
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/22
    EDM
    DET
    Off the rush
    2 G on 20
    1.66 xG
    2 G on 24
    1.87 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.22 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.44 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 0-for-8, DET 3-for-24. EDM 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
    S. Skinner
    EDM · 21/24 · .875
    +0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/51.3-0.7
    Medium0/101.2+1.2
    Low2/460.6-1.4

    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 · 16/18 · .889
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/10.3-0.7
    Medium1/141.6+0.6
    Low0/290.4+0.4

    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

    70 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    EDM
    31 shots
    2
    Final
    70 shots
    DET
    39 shots
    4
    EDM attackDET attack
    EDM DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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
    D. Larkin
    #71 · C · DET
    2 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:11 on ice · +3
    E. Finnie
    #58 · C · DET
    2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:25 on ice · +3
    B. Kulak
    #27 · D · EDM
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 19:13 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Oct 19
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:04 PMEdited 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 Edmonton at 2.6 goals, Detroit at 2.5, with the Red Wings at exactly 50% win probability. Pick either team and you're essentially flipping a coin.

    Edmonton controls the 5v5 play. The Oilers own 52.0% of expected goals to Detroit's 49.0%, and their 50.0% Corsi% confirms it. Edmonton deserves to be favored on underlying metrics. But the Oilers carry a 0.982 PDO, running cold against league average. Detroit's is 0.985. That's the tension: Edmonton's due for positive regression, and when it arrives, that structural advantage becomes more decisive.

    The matchup centers on player conversion. Connor Clattenburg generates 1.47 xG per 60 for Edmonton but has scored just 1 goal on 33.3% shooting—an outlier that has to normalize downward. Zach Hyman is different: 14 goals on 13.0% shooting with 1.23 xG per 60 is a sustainable combination and Edmonton's true offensive anchor.

    Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat, whose 0.88 xG per 60 understates his production: 17 goals on 9.0% shooting indicates skill, not luck. Marco Kasper has generated 0.81 xG per 60 and 7 goals on 6.1% shooting, a profile that holds across volume. DeBrincat's 28 assists underscore that Detroit's offense doesn't rest on one player's variance.

    Both teams have defensive vulnerabilities. Edmonton's Jake Walman and Detroit's Axel Sandin-Pellikka are openings for skilled forwards on the other side. Neither team generates high-danger goals at scale—0% for both—which means positioning errors are costlier.

    This game splits between process and luck. Edmonton has the better underlying game; Detroit has managed short-term variance more efficiently. Regression favors the Oilers long-term, but Detroit's player talent keeps this genuinely even.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    EDM 51%
    51%
    EDM
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    EDM50DET

    EDM by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.5 DET; 18% 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
    EDM← edge
    edge →DET
    52.0%49.0%
    50.0%49.0%
    2.642.38
    2.472.50
    2.131.73
    2.292.07
    0.9820.985

    EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.985) says DET has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    EDM
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    DET
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.982
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • EDM owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    Regression watch
    • EDM PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • EDM owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • EDM PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    EDM
    Connor Clattenburg1G 0A
    1.47 xG/60 · 1 HD · 33.3% sh
    Zach Hyman14G 13A
    1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% 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