The Avalanche earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
Nashville controlled the puck and generated scoring chances at typical rates, then left 3.6 goals on the ice—a reminder that volume without precision is just noise.
The Predators held 57% of shot attempts (35–26) and created 7 high-danger chances. Their expected goals total of 3.58 was respectable for a losing effort. But they converted zero of those seven dangerous looks—an outcome so improbable it won't recur. J. Saros played well enough to steal a game (+4.29 goals saved above expected), yet the puck simply wouldn't go in.
Colorado's advantage lived in shot quality. At 0.108 xG per shot versus Nashville's 0.050, the Avalanche didn't need volume—they needed precision. They got it. N. MacKinnon, A. Lehkonen, and G. Landeskog finished their chances while the Predators couldn't finish theirs. N. MacKinnon (1G, 21:11) led the way; A. Lehkonen and G. Landeskog each added an assist.
M. Blackwood (35/35 saves, 1.000 SV%) was the game's deciding factor, stopping 3.6 goals above expected. He yielded no second chances on Colorado's seven high-danger attempts.
The underlying numbers eventually align with outcomes—but rarely this cleanly. Colorado controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (5.29–3.58). Nashville's shot volume masked its chance quality. When the final score is 3-0, that asymmetry gets written down as goaltending or finish. Both mattered. But this was a lesson in why high-danger chance percentage matters: the Avalanche took the better risks and cashed them. The Predators took the wider risks and didn't.
