Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
Breakdown · DET at VGK

Golden Knights shut out the Red Wings, 1-0

The verdict · earned

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

DET 0 · VGK 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:38 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

Vegas dominated every underlying metric — 66% of expected goals (5.39–2.77), 59% of shot attempts (34–24), nine high-danger chances to four — and won 1-0. But the scoreline wasn't a verdict on dominance; it was a verdict on finish and goaltending.

J. Gibson (DET) stopped 4.39 goals above expected, a 33/34 performance that included a perfect 9-for-9 save rate on high-danger chances. He faced shots with 0.086 expected goals per attempt (Vegas's mark), and held firm. Meanwhile, Vegas went 0/9 on high-danger attempts, converted just one of seven rebound opportunities, and underperformed their xG by 4.39 goals. That's the game: one team generated far more dangerous looks, the other's goalie shut them down, and a backhander from Ivan Barbashev decided it.

Barbashev scored from the doorstep (P2, 13:45) with assists to B. Saad and J. Lauzon. It was the only high-danger chance Vegas would finish all night. A. Schmid (VGK) stopped 2.77 goals above expected in the other net, a solid performance that mattered less because his team couldn't create as much.

The xG quality split tells the real story. Vegas generated 0.086 expected goals per shot; Detroit managed 0.044. Neither team figured out finishing consistency, but Vegas had far more chances to miss.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 4
DET
0
VGK
1

Golden Knights shut out the Red Wings, 1-0

Chances 2.8 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
2.77
VGK
5.39
34% of the chances66%

The board read DET 0, VGK 1. The chances read DET 2.8, VGK 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
−4.4
goals above expected
VGK5.39 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored
DET2.77 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings left 2.8 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. P2 13:45VGKI. Barbashev0–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
46 shots
0
Final
95 shots
VGK
49 shots
1
DET attackVGK attack
DET VGK Goal
46
shots · 0 in
49
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETVGK
0 / 4
0.86 xG
High danger
0 / 9
2.50 xG
0 / 9
1.03 xG
Medium
1 / 18
2.38 xG
0 / 50
0.88 xG
Low
0 / 36
0.50 xG

The Red Wings went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Gibson
+4.4
DET · 33/34
A+
A. Schmid
+2.8
VGK · 24/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights shut out the Red Wings, 1-0

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 9–14no goals
    2ndshots 5–9
    1. 13:45VGKI. Barbashev(B. Saad, J. Lauzon)0–1
    3rdshots 10–11no goals

      score reads DET–VGK

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      5.39
      VGK chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −4.4
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.016
      VGK puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      50.0%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.77Expected goals5.39
      VGK 66% of the chance quality
      24Shots on goal34
      4High-danger chances9
      63All attempts (Corsi)63
      Adjusted for score: DET 52% · VGK 48%
      Faceoffs · VGK won73%off71%neu58%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      DET0 / 4 · 0.86 xG
      VGK0 / 9 · 2.50 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      DET0 / 9 · 1.03 xG
      VGK1 / 18 · 2.38 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      DET0 / 50 · 0.88 xG
      VGK0 / 36 · 0.50 xG

      VGK went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.50 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      DET
      0 G · 2.77 xG · -2.8
      VGK
      1 G · 5.39 xG · -4.4
      0123456

      DET finished -2.8 against expected, VGK -4.4.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      DET
      WRIST0/23
      SNAP0/11
      TIP IN0/5
      SLAP0/4
      DEFLECTED0/1
      BACKHAND0/1
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/17
      VGK
      WRIST0/28
      SNAP0/8
      TIP IN0/6
      SLAP0/3
      DEFLECTED0/3
      BACKHAND1/1
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/14
      DET
      VGK
      Off the rush
      0 G on 27
      1.95 xG
      0 G on 29
      3.66 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 2
      0.20 xG
      1 G on 7
      1.01 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 0-for-23, VGK 0-for-28.

      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. Gibson
      DET · 33/34 · .971
      +4.4
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/92.5+2.5
      Medium1/182.4+1.4
      Low0/360.5+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

      A. Schmid
      VGK · 24/24 · 1.000
      +2.8
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/40.9+0.9
      Medium0/91.0+1.0
      Low0/500.9+0.9

      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

      95 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      DET
      46 shots
      0
      Final
      95 shots
      VGK
      49 shots
      1
      DET attackVGK attack
      DET VGK Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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
      B. Saad
      #20 · L · VGK
      0 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 16:53 on ice · +1
      I. Barbashev
      #49 · L · VGK
      1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 16:48 on ice · +1
      J. Lauzon
      #5 · D · VGK
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:03 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Tue, Nov 4
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:37 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

      Vegas carries the edge here. The model projects DET 2.2 - 2.6 VGK with the Golden Knights at 57% win probability—a lean grounded in territorial control and underlying play, not variance luck.

      Golden Knights own both metrics that matter: 54.0% 5v5 xG versus Detroit's 49.0%, and a Corsi split of 52.0% to 49.0%. That's a 5-point dominance in shot volume and a 3-point edge in possession. Expect Vegas to dictate pace and hold the puck in high-danger zones.

      But there's a volatility story. Vegas's PDO is 0.983, running below neutral and due for positive variance. Detroit's 0.985 is similarly cool. For Vegas, any uptick in finishing efficiency compounds an already-superior underlying position. That's the real edge.

      The offensive profiles diverge on finishing. Detroit's Alex DeBrincat (17G, 28A, 0.88 xG/60) and Marco Kasper (7G, 8A, 0.81 xG/60) shoot at 9.0% and 6.1% respectively. Vegas's Brandon Saad (3G, 6A, 0.91 xG/60) and Tomas Hertl (5G, 17A, 0.88 xG/60) convert at 4.1% and 4.3%. That gap compounds Vegas's already-superior underlying metrics and PDO due for regression.

      Neither team scores on high-danger chances or rebounds (both 0%), so secondary scoring doesn't shift the balance. Detroit's defensive liability is Axel Sandin-Pellikka; Vegas leans on Rasmus Andersson as the weak link. But blueline vulnerabilities don't move the needle when underlying metrics and shooting variance already favor Vegas.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      VGK 57%
      57%
      VGK
      Model favorite
      43%
      57%
      DET50VGK

      VGK by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.2–2.6 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
      DET← edge
      edge →VGK
      49.0%54.0%
      49.0%52.0%
      2.382.52
      2.502.11
      1.732.12
      2.072.10
      0.9850.983

      VGK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.983) says DET has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · No games yet
      DET
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      VGK
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      0.985
      DET 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 Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
      • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
      • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — 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
      DET
      Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
      0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
      Marco Kasper7G 8A
      0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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