Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
Breakdown · MIN at NYR

F. Gustavsson stands tall as the Wild edge the Rangers

The verdict · coin flip

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

MIN 3 · NYR 1
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:12 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

The Rangers had the cleaner chances—3.87 expected goals to Minnesota's 3.70, a 51–49 split—yet lost 3–1. F. Gustavsson saved the difference, stopping pucks worth nearly three expected goals and finishing +2.87 against expected.

New York generated 3.87 xG on just 24 shot attempts, a sign of high-quality looks. Minnesota scraped together 3.70 xG on 32 attempts, an approach built more on volume than precision. By chance distribution, this was a coin flip. By the scoreboard, it was a rout.

The split came down to execution. New York went 0–6 on high-danger chances—a result that won't happen again soon. F. Gustavsson was a wall on those six chances, posting a perfect save percentage in the danger area. He turned what should have been a tight game into a clear Minnesota win.

Kirill Kaprizov's wrist shot from the wing at 18:24 of the third period was the game's pivot. Minnesota capitalized when it mattered; New York wasted similar looks all night.

Minnesota showed discipline in generating secondary chances. The Wild created four rebound opportunities and converted one, evidence of effective net-front play. New York's shots, for all their quality, too often arrived without support.

I. Shesterkin posted a respectable 0.935 save percentage and finished +1.70 against expected. It was a strong individual effort overshadowed by the team's inability to finish. Six high-danger chances is enough to win with; zero conversions is not.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 20
MIN
3
NYR
1

F. Gustavsson stands tall as the Wild edge the Rangers

Chances 3.7 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Wild took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.70
NYR
3.87
49% of the chances51%

The board read MIN 3, NYR 1. The chances read MIN 3.7, NYR 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
−0.7
goals above expected
MIN3.70 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR3.87 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Rangers left 2.9 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 00:57NYRA. Panarin0–1
  2. P1 05:10MINJ. Brodin1–1
  3. P3 08:16MIND. Yurov2–1
  4. P3 18:24MINK. KaprizovEN3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
50 shots
3
Final
94 shots
NYR
44 shots
1
MIN attackNYR attack
MIN NYR Goal
50
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINNYR
2 / 6
1.31 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.38 xG
0 / 16
1.71 xG
Medium
1 / 16
2.03 xG
1 / 51
0.68 xG
Low
0 / 46
0.46 xG

The Rangers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
F. Gustavsson
+2.9
MIN · 23/24
A
I. Shesterkin
+1.7
NYR · 29/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

F. Gustavsson stands tall as the Wild edge the Rangers

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 16–6
  1. 00:57NYRA. Panarin(M. Zibanejad, W. Borgen)0–1
  2. 05:10MINJ. Brodin(M. Boldy, J. Eriksson Ek)1–1
2ndshots 11–11no goals
    3rdshots 5–7
    1. 08:16MIND. Yurov(M. Johansson)2–1
    2. 18:24MINK. Kaprizovempty net(R. Hartman)3–1

    score reads MIN–NYR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.70
    MIN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.7
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.026
    MIN puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    51.8%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.70Expected goals3.87
    NYR 51% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal24
    6High-danger chances6
    73All attempts (Corsi)68
    Adjusted for score: MIN 51% · NYR 49%
    Faceoffs · NYR won52%off57%neu39%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MIN2 / 6 · 1.31 xG
    NYR0 / 6 · 1.38 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MIN0 / 16 · 1.71 xG
    NYR1 / 16 · 2.03 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MIN1 / 51 · 0.68 xG
    NYR0 / 46 · 0.46 xG

    MIN went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.71 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MIN
    3 G · 3.70 xG · -0.7
    NYR
    1 G · 3.87 xG · -2.9
    012345

    MIN finished -0.7 against expected, NYR -2.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MIN
    WRIST3/25
    SNAP0/13
    TIP IN0/3
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/23
    NYR
    WRIST1/26
    SNAP0/4
    TIP IN0/9
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/24
    MIN
    NYR
    Off the rush
    0 G on 32
    2.51 xG
    0 G on 24
    2.22 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 4
    0.62 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.16 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 3-for-25, NYR 1-for-26.

    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 · 23/24 · .958
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.4+1.4
    Medium1/162.0+1.0
    Low0/460.5+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

    I. Shesterkin
    NYR · 29/31 · .935
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.3-0.7
    Medium0/161.7+1.7
    Low1/510.7-0.3

    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

    94 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MIN
    50 shots
    3
    Final
    94 shots
    NYR
    44 shots
    1
    MIN attackNYR attack
    MIN NYR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, NYR 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. Zibanejad
    #93 · C · NYR
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:07 on ice
    A. Panarin
    #10 · L · NYR
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 21:43 on ice
    J. Brodin
    #25 · D · MIN
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 21:25 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Oct 20
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:10 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 a 2.5–2.5 game, with New York at 50% win probability. As close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Minnesota owns the underlying play. The Wild generate 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals to the Rangers' 48.0%—a real edge in puck possession and shot quality. Yet both teams carry nearly identical PDO marks (MIN 1.007, NYR 1.009), suggesting neither is built for an outlier result.

    For Minnesota, focus on two names. Hunter Haight generates 1.23 expected goals per 60 minutes at 8.3% shooting with 1G 1A—a dangerous creator with room to break out. Matt Boldy is the more established threat: 22G 18A on 0.89 xG/60 with five hard-chance goals at 13.7% shooting. He's overperforming his chances.

    New York counters with its own dual threat. Adam Sykora carries a brutal 20.0% shooting rate on 0.91 xG/60 (3G 1A), dangerous precisely because his goal total lags his underlying creation. Gabe Perreault is the safer producer: 8G 11A on 0.79 xG/60 with two hard-chance goals at 13.1% shooting.

    Neither team has scored a hard-chance goal or a rebound goal. That's not sustainable for either side—it signals exploitable depth. Matt Kiersted is Minnesota's defensive liability; Vincent Iorio carries it for New York. Whichever team breaks through on second-chance opportunities gains the edge.

    The projection says 50/50. The underlying play favors Minnesota. That gap is the entire game.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    MIN 50%
    50%
    MIN
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    MIN50NYR

    MIN by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.5–2.5 NYR; 19% 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 →NYR
    52.0%48.0%
    48.0%49.0%
    2.552.26
    2.402.40
    2.041.88
    1.931.90
    1.0071.009

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.007 vs 1.009) says NYR 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
    NYR
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.007
    MIN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.009
    NYR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • MIN owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Things to watch
    • MIN owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    MIN
    Hunter Haight1G 1A
    1.23 xG/60 · 0 HD · 8.3% sh
    Matt Boldy22G 18A
    0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    NYR
    Adam Sykora3G 1A
    0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
    Gabe Perreault8G 11A
    0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next