Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
Breakdown · NJD at COL

Avalanche pull away from the Devils

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 4 · COL 8
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:44 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 escaped the scoreboard by overperforming its expected goals by 3.60 — a historic margin that separated an 8-4 victory from what the numbers suggested was a much tighter affair. The underlying play told a different story: the Avalanche dominated 5v5 expected goals 4.40–3.12, but the final margin more than doubled that advantage.

Shot volume favored Colorado decisively — 42 attempts to 30, with expected goals matching that 58–42 split. The Avalanche also dominated the high-danger chances category, 7–4, the kind of edge that typically predicts the score. But Colorado's finishing was elite; they scored 3 goals from low-danger spots, the kind of bounces that require defensive breakdowns or exceptional luck.

New Jersey's goaltending collapse made the margin worse than the play. J. Markstrom faced the consequences of Colorado's efficiency, surrendering 3.60 more goals than expected on a 42-shot workload. S. Wedgewood, by contrast, underperformed his expected goals by 0.88, keeping the deficit manageable.

The Avalanche showed their precision in other ways. They generated 0.067 expected goals per shot — a quality metric that exceeds New Jersey's 0.050 — proving volume and placement both mattered. Colorado was particularly dangerous off the rush, converting 7 goals on 35 rush chances, where speed and spacing eliminate defensive structure.

The turning point arrived early in the second when Victor Olofsson's wrist shot from the top of the circles found the net at 17:38. That moment summarized the night: Colorado was sharper, more decisive, and more willing to attack high-danger areas. By the final buzzer, they had turned a convincing process into a lopsided scoreline.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 28
NJD
4
COL
8

Avalanche pull away from the Devils

Chances 3.1 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
3.12
COL
4.40
42% of the chances59%

The board read NJD 4, COL 8. The chances read NJD 3.1, COL 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
+3.6
goals above expected
COL4.40 expected · 8 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD3.12 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Avalanche scored 3.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:24COLM. NecasPP0–1
  2. P1 03:49COLZ. Bardakov0–2
  3. P2 02:31COLV. Olofsson0–3
  4. P2 07:11COLN. MacKinnonPP0–4
  5. P2 08:39COLP. Kelly0–5
  6. P2 10:08NJDS. Noesen1–5
  7. P2 11:48NJDD. Hamilton2–5
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
46 shots
4
Final
100 shots
COL
54 shots
8
NJD attackCOL attack
NJD COL Goal
46
shots · 4 in
54
shots · 8 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDCOL
0 / 4
0.78 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.54 xG
2 / 15
1.81 xG
Medium
4 / 21
2.16 xG
2 / 44
0.53 xG
Low
3 / 38
0.70 xG

The Devils went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D-
S. Wedgewood
−0.9
COL · 26/30
F
J. Markstrom
−3.6
NJD · 34/42
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche pull away from the Devils

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 16–12
  1. 01:24COLM. Necaspower play(C. Makar, V. Nichushkin)0–1
  2. 03:49COLZ. Bardakov(P. Kelly, G. Brindley)0–2
2ndshots 11–17
  1. 02:31COLV. Olofsson(J. Ahcan, G. Landeskog)0–3
  2. 07:11COLN. MacKinnonpower play(C. Makar, V. Olofsson)0–4
  3. 08:39COLP. Kelly(R. Colton, B. Burns)0–5
  4. 10:08NJDS. Noesen(P. Cotter)1–5
  5. 11:48NJDD. Hamilton(J. Hughes, L. Hughes)2–5
  6. 13:42NJDD. Mercer(N. Hischier, T. Meier)3–5
  7. 14:12NJDJ. Hughes(J. Bratt)4–5
  8. 15:24COLN. MacKinnonpower play(C. Makar, V. Olofsson)4–6
3rdshots 3–13
  1. 03:10COLV. Olofssonpower play(N. MacKinnon, C. Makar)4–7
  2. 17:38COLV. Olofsson(J. Drury)4–8

score reads NJD–COL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.40
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.058
COL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
51.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.12Expected goals4.40
COL 59% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal42
4High-danger chances7
63All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: NJD 56% · COL 44%
Faceoffs · COL won56%off48%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD0 / 4 · 0.78 xG
COL1 / 7 · 1.54 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD2 / 15 · 1.81 xG
COL4 / 21 · 2.16 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD2 / 44 · 0.53 xG
COL3 / 38 · 0.70 xG

COL went 3-for-38 from low danger on 0.70 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
4 G · 3.12 xG · +0.9
COL
8 G · 4.40 xG · +3.6
0123456789

NJD finished +0.9 against expected, COL +3.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
WRIST1/26
SNAP2/10
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/17
COL
WRIST4/28
SNAP1/8
SLAP2/10
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND1/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/12
NJD
COL
Off the rush
3 G on 27
1.88 xG
7 G on 35
2.96 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.66 xG
0 G on 4
0.82 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 1-for-26, COL 4-for-28. COL scored 7 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. Markstrom
NJD · 34/42 · .810
-3.6
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.5+0.5
Medium4/212.2-1.8
Low3/380.7-2.3

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

S. Wedgewood
COL · 26/30 · .867
-0.9
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.8+0.8
Medium2/151.8-0.2
Low2/440.5-1.5

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

100 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NJD
46 shots
4
Final
100 shots
COL
54 shots
8
NJD attackCOL attack
NJD COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD 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
V. Olofsson
#95 · L · COL
3 G · 2 A · 7 SOG · 14:31 on ice · -1
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
0 G · 4 A · 4 SOG · 25:13 on ice
N. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:56 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:42 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

Colorado is favored here, but modestly and conditionally. The model projects a 2.4-2.9 game with the Avalanche at 59% win probability—an advantage rooted in control and mean reversion, not dominance.

The Avalanche own the play. They generate 57.0% of expected goals at 5v5 against New Jersey's 50.0%, a seven-point gap that shapes the flow of possession. Corsi reinforces the pattern: the Avalanche at 57.0% to the Devils' 51.0%, another edge in the same direction. Territorial control this stark usually predicts wins, but hockey reserves the right to surprise.

The complication is PDO. Colorado's 1.021 signals a team running hot, converting chances at rates that don't persist. New Jersey's 0.971 signals the inverse—they're running cold with positive regression waiting. When lucky teams face unlucky ones, variance often has other plans. If Colorado's finishing regresses and New Jersey's improves, the Avalanche's seven-point xG advantage shrinks to nothing.

The forward matchup favors Colorado in less obvious ways. Timo Meier drives New Jersey at 1.08 expected goals per 60 but shoots only 6.7%, producing 13 goals and 15 assists—a gap suggesting his underlying creation outpaces his scoring. Jack Hughes operates at lower volume (0.88 xG/60) but at an 11.5% shooting rate, banking 18 goals and 17 assists. New Jersey's game plan leans on these two, hoping their streaky conversions hold.

Colorado counters with depth. Artturi Lehkonen sits at 1.11 expected goals per 60 and shoots an elite 14.9%, totaling 18 goals and 22 assists—elite at both ends. Ross Colton mirrors the volume at 1.10 xG/60 but at a thinner 4.9%, posting 7 goals from 15 assists. Colorado's edge isn't star power; it's that both wings generate and convert reliably, while New Jersey depends on two inconsistent finishers.

Defensively, both carry chinks. New Jersey's Johnathan Kovacevic is marked weak, a target Colorado's forward depth should attack. Colorado's Nazem Kadri bears the same burden. These gaps don't swing outcomes alone, but they offer tactical entry points.

The model's edge stands on possession and regression momentum. Colorado should win on the play. Whether they do depends on which PDO converges first.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 59%
59%
COL
Model favorite
41%
59%
NJD50COL

COL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score NJD 2.4–2.9 COL; 17% 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
NJD← edge
edge →COL
50.0%57.0%
51.0%57.0%
2.453.03
2.502.30
1.662.63
2.231.56
0.9711.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
NJD
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
COL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — 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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% 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