Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
Breakdown · MIN at PIT

Wild shut out the Penguins, 5-0

The verdict · earned

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

MIN 5 · PIT 0
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:10 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 Penguins held 48% of shot attempts but were shut out—a scoreline that conceals how close the competitive balance was until execution diverged. Minnesota's 21 shots proved enough; Pittsburgh's 19 generated little, and fewer still of consequence.

Where the game broke: expected goals heavily favored Minnesota (3.72–2.28, a 62–38 split). But the Penguins underperformed even that by 2.28 goals. F. Gustavsson's shutout (19/19 saves) was the difference—he finished +2.28 compared to expected, stealing the show in a way the Penguins' goaltenders could not. S. Murashov started (10/11, +0.95 vs expected) and A. Silovs entered in relief (6/10, -2.23 vs expected), but neither could stem the tide.

Minnesota's problem was conversion: they were 0/5 on high-danger chances—a drought that won't repeat. They won the qualitative battle too (0.073 xG per shot to Pittsburgh's 0.045) and capitalized on the rush, scoring three goals on 25 rush chances.

Pittsburgh's underperformance wasn't just goaltending. They had the volume but not the danger, a mismatch that cost them dearly in a scoreline that looked worse than the underlying play suggested. Nearly even in shots, they were decisively beaten where it mattered: between the pipes.

#### Three Stars

  • #12 M. Boldy (MIN) — 2G, 1A in 19:13
  • #7 B. Faber (MIN) — 2A in 22:20
  • #97 K. Kaprizov (MIN) — 1G, 1A in 19:22
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 21
MIN
5
PIT
0

Wild shut out the Penguins, 5-0

Chances 3.7 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.72
PIT
2.28
62% of the chances38%

The board read MIN 5, PIT 0. The chances read MIN 3.7, PIT 2.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+1.3
goals above expected
MIN3.72 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT2.28 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 2.3 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. P1 03:57MINM. Boldy1–0
  2. P1 09:39MINJ. Eriksson EkPP2–0
  3. P1 11:42MINM. Johansson3–0
  4. P2 01:09MINK. Kaprizov4–0
  5. P2 17:46MINM. Boldy5–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
37 shots
5
Final
73 shots
PIT
36 shots
0
MIN attackPIT attack
MIN PIT Goal
37
shots · 5 in
36
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINPIT
0 / 5
1.26 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.40 xG
4 / 18
2.06 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.44 xG
1 / 28
0.40 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.44 xG

High-danger looks: MIN 0 of 5, PIT 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Murashov
+2.7
PIT · 10/11
A
F. Gustavsson
+2.3
MIN · 19/19
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild shut out the Penguins, 5-0

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 9–3
  1. 03:57MINM. Boldy(B. Faber, J. Eriksson Ek)1–0
  2. 09:39MINJ. Eriksson Ekpower play(Z. Buium, M. Boldy)2–0
  3. 11:42MINM. Johansson(J. Brodin, B. Faber)3–0
2ndshots 5–6
  1. 01:09MINK. Kaprizov(J. Middleton, M. Zuccarello)4–0
  2. 17:46MINM. Boldy(K. Kaprizov)5–0
3rdshots 7–10no goals

    score reads MIN–PIT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.72
    MIN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.098
    MIN puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    50.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.72Expected goals2.28
    MIN 62% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal19
    5High-danger chances2
    51All attempts (Corsi)51
    Adjusted for score: MIN 43% · PIT 57%
    Faceoffs · PIT won38%off70%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MIN0 / 5 · 1.26 xG
    PIT0 / 2 · 0.40 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MIN4 / 18 · 2.06 xG
    PIT0 / 14 · 1.44 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MIN1 / 28 · 0.40 xG
    PIT0 / 35 · 0.44 xG

    MIN went 4-for-18 from medium danger on 2.06 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MIN
    5 G · 3.72 xG · +1.3
    PIT
    0 G · 2.28 xG · -2.3
    0123456

    MIN finished +1.3 against expected, PIT -2.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MIN
    WRIST0/18
    TIP IN3/8
    SLAP1/6
    SNAP0/3
    BACKHAND1/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/14
    PIT
    WRIST0/25
    TIP IN0/3
    SLAP0/1
    SNAP0/1
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/15
    MIN
    PIT
    Off the rush
    3 G on 25
    2.92 xG
    0 G on 25
    1.73 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.28 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.20 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 0-for-18, PIT 0-for-25. MIN 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
    F. Gustavsson
    MIN · 19/19 · 1.000
    +2.3
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium0/141.4+1.4
    Low0/350.4+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

    S. Murashov
    PIT · 10/11 · .909
    +2.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.3+1.3
    Medium4/182.1-1.9
    Low1/280.4-0.6

    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. Silovs
    PIT · 6/10 · .600
    -0.3
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.3+1.3
    Medium4/182.1-1.9
    Low1/280.4-0.6

    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

    73 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MIN
    37 shots
    5
    Final
    73 shots
    PIT
    36 shots
    0
    MIN attackPIT attack
    MIN PIT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, PIT 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
    M. Boldy
    #12 · L · MIN
    2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:13 on ice · +3
    B. Faber
    #7 · D · MIN
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:20 on ice · +3
    K. Kaprizov
    #97 · L · MIN
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:22 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Nov 21
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:08 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 can't pick a winner. Minnesota projects 2.5 goals, Pittsburgh 2.7, leaving the Penguins at 52% win probability—essentially a coin flip. The underlying metrics are equally split: Minnesota owns a 52.0% xG advantage; Pittsburgh counters with 50.0% Corsi. Both teams sit nearly identical on luck, with PDO at 1.007 for the Wild and 1.012 for the Penguins. This is what true parity looks like.

    Pittsburgh has one tangible edge: rest. The Penguins come in with five days of recovery; Minnesota arrives on one. It won't decide the game, but it will matter—fresher skating, crisper transitions, more available in overtime.

    Goaltending presents a question mark. J. Wallstedt is on a back-to-back, which could mean a backup appearance or a noticeably tired starter.

    For Minnesota, Matt Boldy is non-negotiable. He's producing 0.89 xG per 60 with 22 goals and 18 assists. His 13.7% shooting rate shows he converts at scale, with five high-danger chances already generated. Robby Fabbri, who carries comparable volume at 0.88 xG/60, is likely unavailable.

    Pittsburgh's answer is Rickard Rakell. He operates at 1.01 xG per 60—higher throughput than Boldy—with 13 goals and 13 assists. His 12.1% shooting rate proves he finishes, not just creates. Filip Hallander, who generates 1.28 xG per 60, is expected out.

    Defensively, each team has identified liabilities. Minnesota's Matt Kiersted and Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones have been flagged as weak points. Neither team generates consistent rebound or high-danger sequences—a structural flatness that tightens margins and rewards execution over volume.

    The numbers barely lean Pittsburgh. Rest is the only concrete advantage, and fatigue isn't guaranteed to manifest. Minnesota can punish any sluggishness with Boldy's finishing. If these teams played five times, Pittsburgh might win three. That's not dominance. That's barely a bias. That's exactly what a 52% coin flip looks like.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 52%
    52%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    48%
    52%
    MIN50PIT

    PIT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.5–2.7 PIT; 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
    MIN← edge
    edge →PIT
    52.0%51.0%
    48.0%50.0%
    2.552.66
    2.402.55
    2.042.45
    1.932.12
    1.0071.012

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.007 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    MIN
    7-2-1
    +8 GD · 1d rest
    PIT
    4-3-3
    +4 GD · 5d rest
    1.007
    MIN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.012
    PIT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Things to watch
    • J. Wallstedt is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Penguins have 4 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    MIN
    Expected in goal
    J. Wallstedt
    back-to-back.933 last start
    Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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.

    PIT
    Expected in goal
    S. Murashov
    5 days rest1.000 last start
    Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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
    MIN
    Matt Boldy22G 18A
    0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Robby Fabbri2G 3A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
    PIT
    Filip Hallander0G 3A
    1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
    Rickard Rakell13G 13A
    1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next