Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
Breakdown · CHI at WPG

Jets pull away from the Blackhawks

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 3 · WPG 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:03 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

The Jets controlled 58% of 5v5 expected goals (3.62–2.65). Their 6-3 victory, however, suggests even greater dominance — they overperformed their xG by 2.38 goals. S. Knight, Chicago's goaltender, conceded 2.38 goals beyond expectation, revealing the full weight of Winnipeg's performance.

Chicago managed only 24 shot attempts to Winnipeg's 32, and the quality gap was starker: Winnipeg generated 0.067 expected goals per shot versus Chicago's 0.047. High-danger chances told the story cleanly — six for Winnipeg, two for Chicago.

Kyle Connor's backhander from the slot (P3, 17:19) was the turning point — the kind of dangerous, opportunistic play that separates wins from close games.

C. Hellebuyck's 0.875 save percentage (21/24) was workmanlike, but Knight's 0.812 (26/32) exposed the Blackhawks' defensive predicament. Winnipeg's rush game was particularly lethal — five goals on 29 chances, compared to Chicago's two on 27. The Jets also cashed in from unlikely spots: two goals from low-danger areas where goaltenders expect to make the save.

What didn't work: Winnipeg converted zero of six high-danger chances in open play, a statistical anomaly that won't repeat. Knight made some saves he had no business making; the final score flattered no one but rewarded the team that played better in every dimension.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 30
CHI
3
WPG
6

Jets pull away from the Blackhawks

Chances 2.6 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
2.65
WPG
3.62
42% of the chances58%

The board read CHI 3, WPG 6. The chances read CHI 2.6, WPG 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
+2.4
goals above expected
WPG3.62 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.65 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets scored 2.4 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 01:42WPGV. NamestnikovPP0–1
  2. P1 08:57CHIT. Teravainen1–1
  3. P1 16:56WPGG. Vilardi1–2
  4. P2 01:54WPGM. Scheifele1–3
  5. P2 11:19WPGG. Vilardi1–4
  6. P3 10:12WPGJ. Morrissey1–5
  7. P3 13:02CHIA. Vlasic2–5
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
42 shots
3
Final
87 shots
WPG
45 shots
6
CHI attackWPG attack
CHI WPG Goal
42
shots · 3 in
45
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIWPG
0 / 2
0.40 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.43 xG
3 / 14
1.45 xG
Medium
4 / 13
1.45 xG
0 / 40
0.79 xG
Low
2 / 35
0.74 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 0 of 2, WPG 0 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
C. Hellebuyck
−0.3
WPG · 21/24
F
S. Knight
−2.4
CHI · 26/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets pull away from the Blackhawks

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 7–7
  1. 01:42WPGV. Namestnikovpower play(G. Nyquist, N. Niederreiter)0–1
  2. 08:57CHIT. Teravainen(C. Murphy)1–1
  3. 16:56WPGG. Vilardi(M. Scheifele, K. Connor)1–2
2ndshots 7–11
  1. 01:54WPGM. Scheifele(K. Connor)1–3
  2. 11:19WPGG. Vilardi(D. DeMelo, J. Morrissey)1–4
3rdshots 10–14
  1. 10:12WPGJ. Morrissey(D. DeMelo, J. Toews)1–5
  2. 13:02CHIA. Vlasic(C. Bedard, C. Murphy)2–5
  3. 15:03CHIA. Burakovsky(C. Bedard, A. Levshunov)3–5
  4. 17:19WPGK. Connor(M. Scheifele, G. Vilardi)3–6

score reads CHI–WPG

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.62
WPG chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.058
WPG puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.65Expected goals3.62
WPG 58% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal32
2High-danger chances6
56All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: CHI 57% · WPG 43%
Faceoffs · WPG won63%off53%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI0 / 2 · 0.40 xG
WPG0 / 6 · 1.43 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI3 / 14 · 1.45 xG
WPG4 / 13 · 1.45 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI0 / 40 · 0.79 xG
WPG2 / 35 · 0.74 xG

WPG went 4-for-13 from medium danger on 1.45 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
3 G · 2.65 xG · +0.3
WPG
6 G · 3.62 xG · +2.4
01234567

CHI finished +0.3 against expected, WPG +2.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
WRIST1/21
SLAP1/7
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BETWEEN LEGS1/1
OTHER0/14
WPG
WRIST3/25
SLAP1/6
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/6
SNAP1/1
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/9
CHI
WPG
Off the rush
2 G on 27
1.89 xG
5 G on 29
2.18 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.47 xG
0 G on 4
0.80 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-21, WPG 3-for-25. WPG scored 5 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. Knight
CHI · 26/32 · .812
-2.4
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.4+1.4
Medium4/131.4-2.5
Low2/350.7-1.3

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

C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 21/24 · .875
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium3/141.4-1.6
Low0/400.8+0.8

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CHI
42 shots
3
Final
87 shots
WPG
45 shots
6
CHI attackWPG attack
CHI WPG Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:10 on ice · +3
G. Vilardi
#13 · C · WPG
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:58 on ice · +3
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:56 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 30
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:53 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 CHI 2.4 - 2.8 WPG game with the Jets at 57% win probability. Winnipeg's lean rests on five-on-five dominance that spans multiple dimensions.

The Jets control both shot quality and volume. At 48.0% expected goals to Chicago's 42.0%, Winnipeg sustains a six-point edge in prime chances. Corsi tells the same story: the Jets capture 49.0% of shot attempts versus Chicago's 46.0%. Neither team receives a luck bonus—PDO sits at 0.998 for Winnipeg and 0.996 for the Blackhawks—meaning this edge reflects sustained possession, not variance.

Chicago's Tyler Bertuzzi anchors the offense with 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes and 20 goals on 18.0% shooting. His seven high-danger goals make him the game's most efficient threat. Connor Bedard operates differently: 0.82 xG/60 but 27 assists to 17 goals, functioning as a setup man. His 11.8% shooting leaves room for upside if volume increases.

Winnipeg counters with Nino Niederreiter, who leads the game in volume at 0.87 xG/60, and Kyle Connor, who combines 25 goals with 30 assists on 13.0% shooting. Connor's only two high-danger goals underscore his clinical finishing: he's generating fewer prime looks but converting at an elite rate.

The strategic assignments flow directly from these edges. Winnipeg must neutralize Bertuzzi's 0.85 xG/60 generation. Chicago must contain both Niederreiter's chance volume and Connor's dual threat as a finisher and playmaker. If Bedard's shooting ticks upward, Chicago gains a secondary outlet.

The underlying numbers point one direction. Winnipeg sustains higher possession and identical scoring efficiency with no luck disadvantage. That 57% win probability is model confidence that possession will translate to goals.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WPG 57%
57%
WPG
Model favorite
43%
57%
CHI50WPG

WPG by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.4–2.8 WPG; 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
CHI← edge
edge →WPG
42.0%48.0%
46.0%49.0%
2.172.34
2.942.55
1.841.90
2.412.10
0.9960.998

WPG holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 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
CHI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
WPG
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.996
CHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
CHI
Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
Connor Bedard17G 27A
0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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