Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · CBJ at DET

Red Wings edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

Final / OTSat, Nov 22

CBJColumbus Blue Jackets3 DETDetroit Red Wings4

The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.69–3.68 and won anyway.

CBJ 3 · DET 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:12 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

Detroit won by theft. The Red Wings edged Columbus 4-3 in overtime despite losing the expected-goals battle 4.69–3.68—the Blue Jackets controlled 56% of expected goals at 5v5. Goaltending delivered a result the shot quality didn't merit.

The play contradicted the scoreboard. Columbus generated 9 high-danger chances to Detroit's 4, yet trailed. The Blue Jackets underperformed their xG by 1.69 goals, missing opportunities. C. Talbot (DET) saved 1.69 goals above expected with a 0.914 SV%, converting an inferior shot-quality position into victory. J. Greaves (CBJ) made 29 of 33 saves (0.879 SV%)—competent, but insufficient.

Alex DeBrincat's snap shot from a sharp angle at 01:50 of overtime ended it.

Detroit's efficiency in transition masked their underlying disadvantage. They scored 4 goals on 28 rush chances while Columbus managed 3 on 37. The Red Wings generated 4 rebound opportunities (converting none), evidence of net-crashing, but Talbot's positioning determined the result. These marginal gains—slight efficiency edge, transition moments—compounded into a win Columbus' shot quality controlled.

Columbus generated better chances. Detroit's goaltender stopped them anyway. That disparity became decisive in overtime.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Nov 22

CBJ

DET

Red Wings edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

Chances 4.7 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

CBJ

4.69

DET

3.68

56% of the chances44%

The board read CBJ 3, DET 4. The chances read CBJ 4.7, DET 3.7.

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

Luck check

DET

+0.3

goals above expected

DET3.68 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CBJ4.69 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blue Jackets left 1.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 13:18CBJA. FantilliPP1–0
P2 00:36DETL. Raymond1–1
P2 00:54CBJM. Wood2–1
P3 08:38CBJZ. Werenski3–1
P3 10:23DETB. Chiarot3–2
P3 13:25DETM. Seider3–3
OT 01:50DETA. DeBrincat3–4

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

Where the shots came from

CBJ

52 shots

Final

99 shots

DET

47 shots

CBJ DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CBJDET

2 / 9

2.23 xG

High danger

1 / 4

1.05 xG

1 / 16

1.68 xG

Medium

2 / 19

2.12 xG

0 / 51

0.78 xG

Low

1 / 41

0.51 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 2 of 9, DET 1 of 4.

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

In the net

C. Talbot

+1.7

DET · 32/35

J. Greaves

−0.3

CBJ · 29/33

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

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 11–11

13:18CBJA. Fantillipower play(Z. Werenski, S. Monahan)1–0

2ndshots 13–9

00:36DETL. Raymond1–1
00:54CBJM. Wood(D. Mateychuk, D. Severson)2–1

3rdshots 10–11

08:38CBJZ. Werenski(I. Provorov, C. Sillinger)3–1
10:23DETB. Chiarot(P. Kane, M. Seider)3–2
13:25DETM. Seider(E. Finnie, N. Danielson)3–3

OTshots 1–2

01:50DETA. DeBrincat(B. Chiarot, P. Kane)3–4

score reads CBJ–DET

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.68

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.023

DET puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

45.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.69Expected goals3.68

CBJ 56% of the chance quality

35Shots on goal33

9High-danger chances4

76All attempts (Corsi)64

Adjusted for score: CBJ 52% · DET 48%

Faceoffs · DET won43%off29%neu54%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CBJ2 / 9 · 2.23 xG

DET1 / 4 · 1.05 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CBJ1 / 16 · 1.68 xG

DET2 / 19 · 2.12 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CBJ0 / 51 · 0.78 xG

DET1 / 41 · 0.51 xG

CBJ went 0-for-51 from low danger on 0.78 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CBJ

3 G · 4.69 xG · -1.7

DET

4 G · 3.68 xG · +0.3

012345

CBJ finished -1.7 against expected, DET +0.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CBJ

SNAP3/22

WRIST0/18

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/1

WRAP AROUND0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/24

DET

SNAP2/18

WRIST1/14

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND1/3

TIP IN0/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

DEFLECTED0/2

OTHER0/17

CBJ

DET

Off the rush

3 G on 37

3.42 xG

4 G on 28

2.46 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.23 xG

0 G on 4

0.62 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CBJ went 3-for-22, DET 2-for-18. DET scored 4 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. Greaves

CBJ · 29/33 · .879

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.1+0.1

Medium2/192.1+0.1

Low1/410.5-0.5

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 · 32/35 · .914

+1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/92.2+0.2

Medium1/161.7+0.7

Low0/510.8+0.8

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

99 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CBJ

52 shots

Final

99 shots

DET

47 shots

CBJ DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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

Z. Werenski

#8 · D · CBJ

1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 28:05 on ice · -1

B. Chiarot

#8 · D · DET

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:14 on ice · +3

M. Seider

#53 · D · DET

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 23:26 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:11 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 2.6-2.5 Columbus with the Blue Jackets at 51% win probability—this is a pick'em.

Columbus holds an edge in shot quality. Their 52.0% 5v5 expected-goals share against Detroit's 49.0% means they're generating better chances consistently. The 51.0% Corsi% reinforces this: they're controlling possession in a sustainable way. Their 1.003 PDO is neutral; Detroit's 0.985 suggests minor puck-luck resistance.

Form complicates both teams. Columbus is -7 on goal differential over their last ten games; Detroit is -10. Neither can reliably convert when both are bleeding goals.

Back-to-backs present risk. J. Gibson and J. Greaves are each playing their second straight night—expect fatigue or a backup appearance.

Boone Jenner powers Columbus at 0.98 xG per 60, combining 11 goals and 21 assists. His 2 high-danger goals on 9.6% shooting reflects genuine conversion, not variance. Mathieu Olivier contributes secondary scoring at 0.89 xG/60 and 12 goals, though his 13.3% shooting rate won't hold.

Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat, operating at 0.88 xG/60 with 17 goals and 28 assists, including 2 high-danger tallies. Marco Kasper runs lower volume—0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists, 1 high-danger goal—and his 6.1% shooting hints at underperformance.

Both teams have registered 0% high-danger and rebound-goal rates. Columbus's defensive weak link is Conor Garland; Detroit's is Axel Sandin-Pellikka. When the margin is thin, these matter.

The model has this right. It's a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 51%

51%

CBJ

Model favorite

51%

49%

CBJ50DET

CBJ by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.5 DET; 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

CBJ← edge

edge →DET

52.0%49.0%

51.0%49.0%

2.632.38

2.432.50

2.121.73

1.982.07

1.0030.985

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.985) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CBJ

4-4-2

-7 GD · 1d rest

DET

4-5-1

-10 GD · 1d rest

1.003

CBJ 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 Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.

Things to watch

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
J. Gibson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Greaves is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Red Wings are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
The Blue Jackets are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CBJ

Expected in goal

J. Greaves

back-to-back.931 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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.

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

back-to-back.808 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

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

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