Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
← Fri, Oct 31 · the slate
Breakdown · COL at VGK

Avalanche run the Golden Knights off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalFri, Oct 31
COLColorado Avalanche4VGKVegas Golden Knights2
The verdict · earned

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

COL 4 · VGK 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:56 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 Avalanche's 4-2 win was never in doubt underneath—Colorado's dominance in shot quality and volume was absolute. They led 5-2 in high-danger chances and controlled 60% of expected goals (3.55–2.36), a gap at 5v5 that fully explains the final margin.

Vegas's problem wasn't poor shot selection but shot scarcity. They held just 47% of the shot volume (23–26 overall) and generated only 0.036 expected goals per attempt—less than half of Colorado's 0.068. The Avalanche didn't just outshoot Vegas; they outshot them at nearly double the offensive efficiency per look.

The goaltending split confirmed the one-sided battle. S. Wedgewood stopped 21 of 23 shots (0.913 SV%), while C. Lindbom saved 22 of 25 (0.880 SV%), overperforming by 0.55 against expectations. Even elite goaltending couldn't overcome such thin offensive pressure. Colorado was clinical in high-danger situations—2 goals on 5 chances (40%). They won decisively off the rush: 3 goals on 28 attempts versus Vegas's 2 on 26.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 31
COL
4
VGK
2

Avalanche run the Golden Knights off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.5 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
3.55
VGK
2.36
60% of the chances40%

The board read COL 4, VGK 2. The chances read COL 3.5, VGK 2.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
+0.5
goals above expected
COL3.55 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VGK2.36 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. P1 00:41COLM. Necas1–0
  2. P2 04:32COLB. Nelson2–0
  3. P3 02:51VGKT. HertlPP2–1
  4. P3 10:11COLB. Burns3–1
  5. P3 12:01VGKM. Marner3–2
  6. P3 18:22COLC. MakarEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
41 shots
4
Final
82 shots
VGK
41 shots
2
COL attackVGK attack
COL VGK Goal
41
shots · 4 in
41
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLVGK
2 / 5
1.47 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.50 xG
2 / 15
1.58 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.22 xG
0 / 32
0.50 xG
Low
1 / 52
0.63 xG

The Avalanche buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
C. Lindbom
+0.6
VGK · 22/25
B
S. Wedgewood
+0.4
COL · 21/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Golden Knights off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 10–9
  1. 00:41COLM. Necas(C. Makar, D. Toews)1–0
2ndshots 10–7
  1. 04:32COLB. Nelson(J. Drury)2–0
3rdshots 6–7
  1. 02:51VGKT. Hertlpower play(S. Theodore, M. Marner)2–1
  2. 10:11COLB. Burns(M. Necas)3–1
  3. 12:01VGKM. Marner(T. Hertl, B. Hutton)3–2
  4. 18:22COLC. Makarempty net(M. Necas, N. MacKinnon)4–2

score reads COL–VGK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.55
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.047
COL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.55Expected goals2.36
COL 60% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal23
5High-danger chances2
52All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: COL 39% · VGK 61%
Faceoffs · VGK won64%off36%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
COL2 / 5 · 1.47 xG
VGK1 / 2 · 0.50 xG
Medium dangermid-range
COL2 / 15 · 1.58 xG
VGK0 / 12 · 1.22 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
COL0 / 32 · 0.50 xG
VGK1 / 52 · 0.63 xG

VGK went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.22 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
COL
4 G · 3.55 xG · +0.5
VGK
2 G · 2.36 xG · -0.4
012345

COL finished +0.5 against expected, VGK -0.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
COL
WRIST3/28
SLAP1/6
BACKHAND0/4
SNAP0/2
TIP IN0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
VGK
WRIST2/26
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/2
SNAP0/4
TIP IN0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/25
COL
VGK
Off the rush
3 G on 28
2.09 xG
2 G on 26
1.66 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.48 xG
0 G on 2
0.29 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 3-for-28, VGK 2-for-26. COL 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
S. Wedgewood
COL · 21/23 · .913
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.5
Medium0/121.2+1.2
Low1/520.6-0.4

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

C. Lindbom
VGK · 22/25 · .880
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.5-0.5
Medium2/151.6-0.4
Low0/320.5+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
COL
41 shots
4
Final
82 shots
VGK
41 shots
2
COL attackVGK attack
COL VGK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL left, VGK 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. Necas
#88 · C · COL
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:57 on ice · +3
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 26:41 on ice · +3
M. Marner
#93 · R · VGK
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:29 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Oct 31
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:55 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 2.6-2.5 Avalanche victory with Colorado at 51% win probability. This matchup is about as close to a pick'em as you'll get.

Colorado owns territory at 57.0% Corsi—near-total possession control. That edge compounds in shot quality: 57.0% xG% means Colorado's chances are both more frequent and cleaner. Artturi Lehkonen drives the offense at 1.11 expected goals per 60 minutes while carrying an extreme 14.9% shooting rate (18 goals, 22 assists). Ross Colton pairs similarly strong underlying numbers at 1.10 xG/60 with anemic finishing at 4.9% (7 goals, 15 assists), a gap that will close.

Vegas plays from behind. At 54.0% xG% and 52.0% Corsi, the Golden Knights lose possession wars and generate fewer high-quality chances. But their 0.983 PDO is a warning: they're shooting below what their process suggests they should. Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60, 3 goals, 6 assists) and Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5 goals, 17 assists) remain inefficient in volume, yet both shoot at 4.1% and 4.3% respectively—levels that typically regress upward.

Colorado's 1.021 PDO cuts the other direction. The Avalanche are converting at a rate beyond what their shot quality justifies, which means regression is coming. Lehkonen's 14.9% shooting rate will drift downward, and that erosion alone costs them wins.

The matchup ultimately splits on timing. Vegas has the long-term bet—positive regression in conversion rates. Colorado controls the present: possession, execution, efficiency. Whichever force prevails first likely decides the game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 51%
51%
COL
Model favorite
51%
49%
COL50VGK

COL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score COL 2.6–2.5 VGK; 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
COL← edge
edge →VGK
57.0%54.0%
57.0%52.0%
3.032.52
2.302.11
2.632.12
1.562.10
1.0210.983

COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 0.983) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
COL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
VGK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.983
VGK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page