Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
← Mon, Nov 17 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at CBJ

Blue Jackets steal one from the Canadiens against the run of play

Final / OTMon, Nov 17
MTLMontreal Canadiens3CBJColumbus Blue Jackets4
The verdict · stolen

The Blue Jackets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.89–2.79 and won anyway.

MTL 3 · CBJ 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:43 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

Columbus won 4-3 in a shootout despite trailing badly in expected goals: Montreal 3.89, Columbus 2.79. The Canadiens controlled 58% of xG at 5v5, and Columbus managed only 42% of shot attempts (23 to 32). This was a heist.

Columbus overperformed their xG by 1.21 goals while Montreal underperformed by 0.89. J. Greaves stopped 29 of 32 shots (0.906 SV%) for Columbus; J. Dobes made 20 saves on 23 shots (0.870 SV%) for Montreal. Greaves was the difference—nearly a full goal better than expected.

High-danger chances split evenly at 7-7, but both teams found their scoring elsewhere: Columbus went 3-for-20 on the rush, while Montreal did the same, 3-for-27. That symmetry masks Montreal's structural advantage—they generated 6 rebound opportunities and converted zero, suggesting they crashed the net but couldn't finish the cleanup.

Kirill Marchenko's wrist shot from the slot decided it in the shootout, completing a game where Columbus's finishing—not their play—carried the result.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 17
MTL
3
CBJ
4

Blue Jackets steal one from the Canadiens against the run of play

Chances 3.9 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.89
CBJ
2.79
58% of the chances42%

The board read MTL 3, CBJ 4. The chances read MTL 3.9, CBJ 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
+1.2
goals above expected
CBJ2.79 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL3.89 expected · 3 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 06:58CBJZ. Werenski0–1
  2. P2 04:47MTLO. Kapanen1–1
  3. P2 09:47CBJA. Fantilli1–2
  4. P2 13:32CBJD. VoronkovPP1–3
  5. P3 08:28MTLJ. Anderson2–3
  6. P3 18:41MTLL. HutsonPP3–3
  7. SO 00:00CBJK. JohnsonPP3–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
48 shots
4
Final
81 shots
CBJ
33 shots
5
MTL attackCBJ attack
MTL CBJ Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

48
shots · 4 in
33
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLCBJ
2 / 7
1.78 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.80 xG
0 / 11
1.29 xG
Medium
0 / 4
0.52 xG
1 / 41
0.81 xG
Low
1 / 34
0.46 xG

The Blue Jackets buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Greaves
+0.9
CBJ · 29/32
C
J. Dobes
−0.2
MTL · 20/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets steal one from the Canadiens 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 8–10
  1. 06:58CBJZ. Werenski(M. Olivier, C. Coyle)0–1
2ndshots 9–6
  1. 04:47MTLO. Kapanen(M. Matheson, I. Demidov)1–1
  2. 09:47CBJA. Fantilli(K. Marchenko, D. Voronkov)1–2
  3. 13:32CBJD. Voronkovpower play(K. Marchenko, Z. Werenski)1–3
3rdshots 9–7
  1. 08:28MTLJ. Anderson(L. Hutson, J. Evans)2–3
  2. 18:41MTLL. Hutsonpower play(N. Dobson, C. Caufield)3–3
OTshots 6–0no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CBJK. Johnsonpower play3–3
    2. 00:00MTLC. Caufieldpower play3–3
    3. 00:00CBJK. Marchenkopower play3–3

    score reads MTL–CBJ

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.79
    CBJ chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.016
    CBJ puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    43.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.89Expected goals2.79
    MTL 58% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal23
    7High-danger chances7
    59All attempts (Corsi)45
    Adjusted for score: MTL 61% · CBJ 40%
    Faceoffs · CBJ won24%off48%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MTL2 / 7 · 1.78 xG
    CBJ2 / 7 · 1.80 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MTL0 / 11 · 1.29 xG
    CBJ0 / 4 · 0.52 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MTL1 / 41 · 0.81 xG
    CBJ1 / 34 · 0.46 xG

    MTL went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.29 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MTL
    3 G · 3.89 xG · -0.9
    CBJ
    4 G · 2.79 xG · +1.2
    012345

    MTL finished -0.9 against expected, CBJ +1.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MTL
    WRIST2/28
    SNAP0/9
    DEFLECTED0/4
    BACKHAND1/2
    TIP IN0/0
    SLAP0/2
    OTHER0/14
    CBJ
    WRIST2/18
    SNAP0/8
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BACKHAND0/1
    TIP IN1/3
    SLAP0/0
    OTHER0/14
    MTL
    CBJ
    Off the rush
    3 G on 27
    2.99 xG
    3 G on 20
    2.51 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 6
    0.57 xG
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 2-for-28, CBJ 2-for-18. MTL 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
    J. Dobes
    MTL · 20/23 · .870
    -0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/71.8-0.2
    Medium0/40.5+0.5
    Low1/340.5-0.5

    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

    J. Greaves
    CBJ · 29/32 · .906
    +0.9
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/71.8-0.2
    Medium0/111.3+1.3
    Low1/410.8-0.2

    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

    81 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MTL
    48 shots
    4
    Final
    81 shots
    CBJ
    33 shots
    5
    MTL attackCBJ attack
    MTL CBJ Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, CBJ 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
    Z. Werenski
    #8 · D · CBJ
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 29:41 on ice · -1
    L. Hutson
    #48 · D · MTL
    1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 25:42 on ice · +2
    K. Marchenko
    #86 · R · CBJ
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:07 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Nov 17
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:25 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

    Columbus enters this matchup as a lean favorite. The model projects a 2.4-to-2.8-goal advantage for the Blue Jackets, who carry 56% win probability—a modest but meaningful edge.

    That edge rests on superior underlying play. Columbus controls 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5, outpacing Montreal's 48.0%. The gap widens slightly in raw shot attempts, where the Blue Jackets claim 51.0% of Corsis to Montreal's 49.0%. These aren't dominant advantages, but they compound: teams that sustain shot advantages usually win marginal contests.

    The divergence that matters lies in regression. Montreal's PDO stands at 1.018, a figure that reflects unsustainable offensive luck. Columbus sits at 1.003, closer to the long-run mean. When Montreal's PDO normalizes—and it will—the Canadiens' actual win rate will fall below the underlying metrics.

    Cole Caufield fuels Montreal's attack. The 33-goal winger generates 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes and converts at a 20.0% rate; that efficiency is borrowed time. Oliver Kapanen reinforces it, with 19 goals off 0.83 xG/60 and 17.8% shooting. Both are running hot.

    Boone Jenner anchors Columbus at center, where 11 goals and 21 assists on 0.98 xG/60 translate to elite playmaking at 5v5. Mathieu Olivier (12 goals, 0.89 xG/60) provides secondary scoring depth.

    Defensively, Mike Matheson represents the liability Montreal must shore up. Conor Garland's weaknesses invite Montreal to attack. The tactical clarity is sharp: if Montreal can neutralize Jenner and starve Columbus's 5v5 volume generation, regression plays out painlessly. If Columbus wins the play-balance battle as these numbers suggest, Montreal's luck simply runs out. Regression is mechanical, not punitive. The Canadiens were never this good. The Blue Jackets just have to play their game and wait.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CBJ 56%
    56%
    CBJ
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    MTL50CBJ

    CBJ by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.4–2.8 CBJ; 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
    MTL← edge
    edge →CBJ
    48.0%52.0%
    49.0%51.0%
    2.412.63
    2.622.43
    2.242.12
    1.961.98
    1.0181.003

    CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 1.003) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    MTL
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    CBJ
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.018
    MTL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.003
    CBJ PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    MTL
    Cole Caufield33G 16A
    0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
    Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
    0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
    CBJ
    Boone Jenner11G 21A
    0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
    Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
    0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page