Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · SEA at DET

Red Wings run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Nov 18

SEASeattle Kraken2 DETDetroit Red Wings4

The verdict · earned

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

SEA 2 · DET 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:34 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 4–2 scoreline flatters Seattle. Detroit controlled 67% of 5v5 expected goals (4.62–2.30) and registered 9–4 in high-danger chances. J. Daccord (SEA) saved 1.62 goals above expected—he was the only reason this stayed within two.

The gap between volume and quality explained Detroit's control. They registered 0.078 expected goals per shot to Seattle's 0.057. Attempts went 27–22, but quality went much further. Detroit scored three times on 25 rush attempts and generated six rebound opportunities through relentless net-crashing, converting none. The volume alone showed their dominance.

J. Daccord (SEA) stopped 23 of 26 (0.885 SV%), performing admirably in a lost cause. C. Talbot (DET) stopped 20 of 22 (0.909 SV%). Detroit's chances were qualitatively superior, giving Talbot the easier night despite the save-percentage gap.

Turning point. Dylan Larkin's wrist shot from the point (third period, 19:30).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 18

SEA

DET

Red Wings run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.3 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

2.30

DET

4.62

33% of the chances67%

The board read SEA 2, DET 4. The chances read SEA 2.3, DET 4.6.

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

Luck check

DET

−0.6

goals above expected

DET4.62 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

SEA2.30 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

P1 19:02SEAJ. EberlePP1–0
P2 01:19DETL. Raymond1–1
P2 02:04DETN. Danielson1–2
P2 07:26SEAR. Evans2–2
P2 10:56DETE. FinniePP2–3
P3 19:30DETD. LarkinEN2–4

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

Where the shots came from

SEA

31 shots

Final

74 shots

DET

43 shots

SEA DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEADET

1 / 4

0.85 xG

High danger

2 / 9

2.60 xG

0 / 7

0.81 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.54 xG

1 / 29

0.64 xG

Low

1 / 37

0.48 xG

The Red Wings buried 2 of 9 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Daccord

+1.6

SEA · 23/26

C. Talbot

+0.3

DET · 20/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings run the Kraken 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 11–10

19:02SEAJ. Eberlepower play(M. Beniers, E. Tolvanen)1–0

2ndshots 6–10

01:19DETL. Raymond(A. DeBrincat, M. Seider)1–1
02:04DETN. Danielson(M. Appleton, A. Sandin-Pellikka)1–2
07:26SEAR. Evans(E. Tolvanen, S. Wright)2–2
10:56DETE. Finniepower play(N. Danielson, A. Copp)2–3

3rdshots 5–7

19:30DETD. Larkinempty net(L. Raymond, A. DeBrincat)2–4

score reads SEA–DET

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.62

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.6

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.018

DET puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

59.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.30Expected goals4.62

DET 67% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal27

4High-danger chances9

40All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: SEA 42% · DET 58%

Faceoffs · DET won64%off52%neu43%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA1 / 4 · 0.85 xG

DET2 / 9 · 2.60 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA0 / 7 · 0.81 xG

DET1 / 13 · 1.54 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA1 / 29 · 0.64 xG

DET1 / 37 · 0.48 xG

SEA went 0-for-7 from medium danger on 0.81 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

2 G · 2.30 xG · -0.3

DET

4 G · 4.62 xG · -0.6

012345

SEA finished -0.3 against expected, DET -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

WRIST2/12

SNAP0/6

BACKHAND0/4

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/9

DET

WRIST1/15

SNAP2/14

BACKHAND0/5

SLAP0/3

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED1/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/16

SEA

DET

Off the rush

0 G on 22

1.54 xG

3 G on 25

2.64 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.39 xG

0 G on 6

0.89 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 2-for-12, DET 1-for-15. DET 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. Daccord

SEA · 23/26 · .885

+1.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/92.6+0.6

Medium1/131.5+0.5

Low1/370.5-0.5

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

C. Talbot

DET · 20/22 · .909

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.8-0.1

Medium0/70.8+0.8

Low1/290.6-0.4

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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SEA

31 shots

Final

74 shots

DET

43 shots

SEA DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA left, DET 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

A. DeBrincat

#93 · R · DET

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:24 on ice · +2

L. Raymond

#23 · L · DET

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:53 on ice · +2

E. Tolvanen

#20 · R · SEA

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 14:35 on ice · -2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Nov 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:31 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 gives Detroit a 54% win probability in a 2.3–2.6 game—this is a coin flip.

Detroit's territorial edge explains the lean. The Red Wings own a 49.0% Corsi, compared to Seattle's 45.0%, meaning they'll spend more time in the offensive zone. Both teams' underlying production (Detroit 49.0% xG, Seattle 46.0% xG) aligns with that control. Seattle's PDO sits at 1.011, well above average; Detroit's is 0.985, a hair below. That's luck noise, not predictive—ignore it.

The wildcard is goaltending. C. Talbot is riding a back-to-back. Detroit may start a backup or risk a tired starter, which could flatten any structural advantage.

Seattle's offense hinges on two creators. Shane Wright carries 0.77 expected goals per 60 minutes and has buried 8 goals on 10 assists. He's scored on 4 high-difficulty chances, reflecting clinical finishing at 10.4%. Berkly Catton mirrors that intensity at 0.68 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists; 5 of his goals came from prime scoring areas, though his 8.8% shooting rate suggests some luck.

Detroit counters with firepower. Alex DeBrincat leads at 0.88 xG/60, has 17 goals and 28 assists—production that dwarfs Seattle's top scorers—and has only 2 high-danger tallies despite his volume, a sign he's getting quality chances but hasn't cashed in a ton of point-blank opportunities. Marco Kasper runs 0.81 xG/60 with 7 goals and 8 assists; just 1 of his goals came from high-difficulty positions, suggesting he's scoring on cleaner looks.

The mismatch isn't in raw talent. It's positional: DeBrincat and Kasper operate in Detroit's system where puck control translates to chance creation. Wright and Catton are productive enough but swim upstream against the Corsi current.

Defensively, Seattle's weakness is Chandler Stephenson in the bottom four. Detroit relies on Axel Sandin-Pellikka to log tough minutes—both vulnerable to transition offense. This cuts both ways, but Seattle's offensive limitations make capitalization harder.

The Red Wings are slight favorites because they control play and can afford inefficiency. Seattle must play perfect. That's the edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 54%

54%

DET

Model favorite

46%

54%

SEA50DET

DET by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.6 DET; 19% 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

SEA← edge

edge →DET

46.0%49.0%

45.0%49.0%

2.132.38

2.512.50

1.871.73

1.952.07

1.0110.985

DET holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 0.985) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SEA

5-2-3

+0 GD · 2d rest

DET

5-4-1

-3 GD · 1d rest

1.011

SEA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Red Wings drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Red Wings drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
C. Talbot is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

SEA

Expected in goal

P. Grubauer

2 days rest1.000 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

DET

Expected in goal

C. Talbot

back-to-back.947 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page