The Wild earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
Minnesota won 5–2, but the real story is how they dominated with equal shot volume. The Wild matched Vancouver's 28 shots on goal, yet controlled 63% of expected goals (5.04–3.01) and generated 11 high-danger chances to Vancouver's 3. Every shot Minnesota took was more dangerous.
This gap between volume and danger reveals Minnesota's ruthless efficiency. Their shots carried nearly twice the danger of Vancouver's—0.087 expected goals per shot versus 0.049. Two goals came from the rush. They crashed the net effectively, creating 3 rebound opportunities and converting 1. Vancouver matched them at the net, creating 4 rebound opportunities for just 1 conversion, but with far fewer high-danger looks backing it up.
T. Demko stopped 1.04 goals above expected, yet Vancouver underperformed their expected goals by 1.01. The scoreboard was kinder to them than their underlying play warranted.
F. Gustavsson made 26 stops and posted +1.01 against expected. This wasn't a goaltending competition—Minnesota's quality of play sealed the outcome long before the final horn.
Dominance, when the shot count lies, looks like this: identical attempts, radically different danger.