Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater

Breakdown · COL at VAN

Avalanche steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

Final / OTSun, Nov 9

COLColorado Avalanche5 VANVancouver Canucks4

The verdict · stolen

The Avalanche stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.52–5.39 and won anyway.

COL 5 · VAN 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:23 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 won 5-4 in overtime. The Canucks generated 60% of expected goals. Pick one.

Vancouver controlled the shot metrics that matter: 33 to 32 on goal, and a massive edge in expected-goal quality at 0.077 per shot versus Colorado's 0.054. Their eight high-danger chances to Colorado's six told the same story. M. Blackwood (COL) overperformed his xG by 1.39 goals; K. Lankinen (VAN) underperformed by 1.48. This was a heist.

N. MacKinnon (COL) finished with 2G, 3A in 20:03, and #8 C. Makar (COL) contributed 2A in 27:34. #62 A. Lehkonen (COL) scored twice in 17:40. Gavin Brindley's poke from the slot at 01:08 of overtime — the turning point — capped a night where Colorado's conversion rate defied the underlying play.

Vancouver's rush game generated three goals on 33 chances; Colorado matched that on 30. On rebound opportunities, Colorado converted two of four while Vancouver converted one of seven. The efficiency gap tightened at the extremes, but the possession picture remained lopsided.

Colorado's power play was the outlier that mattered: 2 PPG on 6 PP shots (0.51 xG). That's lethal, and it's where the game tilted. The Canucks' 51% on shot attempts wasn't enough to overcome a night when their goalie couldn't match the opportunities they created and their opponent could.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Nov 9

COL

VAN

Avalanche steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

Chances 3.5 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

COL

3.52

VAN

5.39

40% of the chances61%

The board read COL 5, VAN 4. The chances read COL 3.5, VAN 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

COL

+1.5

goals above expected

COL3.52 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN5.39 expected · 4 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

P1 06:41COLN. MacKinnon1–0
P1 08:10COLN. MacKinnonPP2–0
P1 11:47VANL. Karlsson2–1
P2 01:44VANK. Sherwood2–2
P3 00:28COLA. Lehkonen3–2
P3 07:26VAND. O'ConnorSH3–3
P3 09:47COLA. LehkonenPP4–3

+2 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

COL

46 shots

Final

101 shots

VAN

55 shots

COL VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

COLVAN

1 / 6

1.42 xG

High danger

2 / 8

2.18 xG

3 / 13

1.33 xG

Medium

2 / 21

2.52 xG

1 / 46

0.78 xG

Low

0 / 41

0.70 xG

High-danger looks: COL 1 of 6, VAN 2 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

B+

M. Blackwood

+1.4

COL · 29/33

D-

K. Lankinen

−1.5

VAN · 27/32

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Avalanche steal one from the Canucks against the run of play

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 9–16

06:41COLN. MacKinnon(V. Nichushkin, C. Makar)1–0
08:10COLN. MacKinnonpower play(V. Olofsson, V. Nichushkin)2–0
11:47VANL. Karlsson(F. Hronek, E. Kane)2–1

2ndshots 7–10

01:44VANK. Sherwood2–2

3rdshots 14–7

00:28COLA. Lehkonen(B. Burns, N. MacKinnon)3–2
07:26VAND. O'Connorshorthanded3–3
09:47COLA. Lehkonenpower play(M. Necas, N. MacKinnon)4–3
16:59VANJ. DeBruskpower play(B. Boeser, Q. Hughes)4–4

OTshots 2–0

01:08COLG. Brindley(C. Makar, N. MacKinnon)5–4

score reads COL–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.52

COL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.020

COL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

48.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.52Expected goals5.39

VAN 61% of the chance quality

32Shots on goal33

6High-danger chances8

65All attempts (Corsi)70

Adjusted for score: COL 46% · VAN 54%

Faceoffs · VAN won63%off55%neu60%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

COL1 / 6 · 1.42 xG

VAN2 / 8 · 2.18 xG

Medium dangermid-range

COL3 / 13 · 1.33 xG

VAN2 / 21 · 2.52 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

COL1 / 46 · 0.78 xG

VAN0 / 41 · 0.70 xG

COL went 3-for-13 from medium danger on 1.33 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

COL

5 G · 3.52 xG · +1.5

VAN

4 G · 5.39 xG · -1.4

0123456

COL finished +1.5 against expected, VAN -1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

COL

WRIST1/26

SNAP2/2

TIP IN1/7

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

POKE1/1

OTHER0/19

VAN

WRIST1/29

SNAP1/11

TIP IN1/5

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND1/6

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/15

COL

VAN

Off the rush

3 G on 30

1.68 xG

3 G on 33

3.07 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 4

0.73 xG

1 G on 7

1.18 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 1-for-26, VAN 1-for-29. 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

M. Blackwood

COL · 29/33 · .879

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/82.2+0.2

Medium2/212.5+0.5

Low0/410.7+0.7

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

K. Lankinen

VAN · 27/32 · .844

-1.5

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.4+0.4

Medium3/131.3-1.7

Low1/460.8-0.2

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

101 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

COL

46 shots

Final

101 shots

VAN

55 shots

COL VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL left, VAN 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

N. MacKinnon

#29 · C · COL

2 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 20:03 on ice

C. Makar

#8 · D · COL

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 27:34 on ice · -2

A. Lehkonen

#62 · L · COL

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 17:40 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:21 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 2.9–2.4 Avalanche win with Colorado at 59% win probability. The underlying story is cleaner than the scoreline suggests.

Colorado owns the five-on-five play by a wide margin. The Avalanche generate 57.0% expected goals and control 57.0% of shot attempts, while Vancouver sits at 44.0% and 46.0% respectively. Colorado will dominate possession; Vancouver will chase.

Form reinforces the gap. Colorado is 5–1–4 over its last ten games, riding a points pace near the league's top. Vancouver has cratered to minus-10 goal differential in the same stretch—both bad luck and underperformance.

But here's the regression risk. Colorado's PDO is 1.021, meaning they're outscoring xG by nearly 2 percent—running hot and unsustainable. Vancouver sits at 0.974, suggesting positive regression is due. Close this gap even slightly and Colorado's 59 percent win probability tightens fast.

On personnel, Colorado's edges are clear. Artturi Lehkonen drives 1.11 expected goals per 60 minutes with 18 goals, 22 assists, and 6 high-danger goals at a 14.9 percent shooting rate. Ross Colton backs him at 1.10 xG/60, 7 goals, and 15 assists, but his 4.9 percent shooting rate suggests regression could swing production either direction.

Vancouver's attack centers on Drew O'Connor and Filip Chytil. O'Connor has 13 goals and 11 assists from 0.85 xG/60 at 11.8 percent shooting. Chytil generates 1.03 xG/60 with 3 goals, 0 assists, and 15.0 percent shooting—purely a finisher. Defensively, Victor Mancini needs to tighten his game; Colorado must watch Nazem Kadri's positioning.

The Avalanche are the clear choice, but their hot PDO is the only thing standing between a dominant spread and something in the mid-threes. Value hunters might wait for Colorado's regression before pulling the trigger.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 59%

59%

COL

Model favorite

59%

41%

COL50VAN

COL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score COL 2.9–2.4 VAN; 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

COL← edge

edge →VAN

57.0%44.0%

57.0%46.0%

3.032.22

2.302.81

2.631.60

1.562.56

1.0210.974

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 0.974) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

COL

5-1-4

+8 GD · 4d rest

VAN

4-6-0

-10 GD · 3d rest

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN 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 44.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Avalanche are the hotter team by points pace (5-1-4 in their last 10).
The Canucks are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

COL

Expected in goal

S. Wedgewood

4 days rest.917 last start

Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

VAN

Expected in goal

K. Lankinen

3 days rest.852 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page