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

Wild steal one from the Blackhawks against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Wild stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.31–4.77 and won anyway.

MIN 4 · CHI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:47 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

Minnesota won a game it had no right to win. The Blackhawks controlled 59% of expected goals (4.77–3.31), held 61% of shot attempts, and created more high-danger chances (7 to 5). The final score was Wild 4, Blackhawks 3 in overtime. This was a heist.

F. Gustavsson saved the night. The Minnesota goaltender stopped 34 of 37 shots (0.919 SV%) and ran 1.77 goals above expected — the margin between a regulation loss and an overtime win. S. Knight finished at 20 saves on 24 shots (0.833 SV%), running 0.69 goals below expected.

Minnesota's edge came in two places: ruthlessness in high-danger areas and efficiency on the rush. The Wild went 2 of 5 on high-danger chances (40%), while Chicago scored three goals on 34 rush attempts. Minnesota scored two goals on 18 rush chances — a sharper ratio. The Wild also scored twice from low-danger spots, the kind of finishes a cohesive defense would prevent.

Chicago's rebound crash was energetic but fruitless: 11 rebound opportunities created, none converted. Minnesota had four rebounding chances and cashed one. In a game decided by margin rather than dominance, those small edges compound.

Kirill Kaprizov's wrist shot at 01:38 of overtime ended it — a moment of execution that xG cannot predict.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 26
MIN
4
CHI
3

Wild steal one from the Blackhawks against the run of play

Chances 3.3 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.31
CHI
4.77
41% of the chances59%

The board read MIN 4, CHI 3. The chances read MIN 3.3, CHI 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+0.7
goals above expected
MIN3.31 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI4.77 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 1.8 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. P2 05:41CHIJ. Dickinson0–1
  2. P2 12:08CHIC. Bedard0–2
  3. P2 19:46MINB. Faber1–2
  4. P3 02:17MINN. Sturm2–2
  5. P3 05:31CHIA. Levshunov2–3
  6. P3 10:35MINM. Boldy3–3
  7. OT 01:38MINK. KaprizovPP4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
42 shots
4
Final
100 shots
CHI
58 shots
3
MIN attackCHI attack
MIN CHI Goal
42
shots · 4 in
58
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINCHI
2 / 5
1.38 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.75 xG
0 / 12
1.45 xG
Medium
2 / 20
2.16 xG
2 / 36
0.48 xG
Low
0 / 38
0.86 xG

The Wild buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
F. Gustavsson
+1.8
MIN · 34/37
D
S. Knight
−0.7
CHI · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild steal one from the Blackhawks 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 5–20no goals
    2ndshots 8–9
    1. 05:41CHIJ. Dickinson0–1
    2. 12:08CHIC. Bedard(S. Rinzel, T. Bertuzzi)0–2
    3. 19:46MINB. Faber(M. Johansson, M. Boldy)1–2
    3rdshots 9–8
    1. 02:17MINN. Sturm(J. Brodin, J. Middleton)2–2
    2. 05:31CHIA. Levshunov(C. Bedard, C. Dach)2–3
    3. 10:35MINM. Boldy(J. Brodin, B. Faber)3–3
    OTshots 2–0
    1. 01:38MINK. Kaprizovpower play(M. Boldy, J. Eriksson Ek)4–3

    score reads MIN–CHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.31
    MIN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.7
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.029
    MIN puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.31Expected goals4.77
    CHI 59% of the chance quality
    24Shots on goal37
    5High-danger chances7
    53All attempts (Corsi)65
    Adjusted for score: MIN 47% · CHI 53%
    Faceoffs · CHI won61%off48%neu61%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MIN2 / 5 · 1.38 xG
    CHI1 / 7 · 1.75 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MIN0 / 12 · 1.45 xG
    CHI2 / 20 · 2.16 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MIN2 / 36 · 0.48 xG
    CHI0 / 38 · 0.86 xG

    MIN went 2-for-36 from low danger on 0.48 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MIN
    4 G · 3.31 xG · +0.7
    CHI
    3 G · 4.77 xG · -1.8
    0123456

    MIN finished +0.7 against expected, CHI -1.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MIN
    WRIST3/28
    SLAP0/6
    SNAP0/1
    TIP IN1/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/11
    CHI
    WRIST0/31
    SLAP0/7
    SNAP2/9
    TIP IN0/5
    BACKHAND1/2
    DEFLECTED0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/7
    MIN
    CHI
    Off the rush
    2 G on 18
    1.78 xG
    3 G on 34
    2.85 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 4
    0.81 xG
    0 G on 11
    1.57 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 3-for-28, CHI 0-for-31. CHI 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 · 34/37 · .919
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.8+0.8
    Medium2/202.2+0.2
    Low0/380.9+0.9

    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. Knight
    CHI · 20/24 · .833
    -0.7
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/51.4-0.6
    Medium0/121.4+1.4
    Low2/360.5-1.5

    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

    100 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MIN
    42 shots
    4
    Final
    100 shots
    CHI
    58 shots
    3
    MIN attackCHI attack
    MIN CHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, CHI 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
    1 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 22:34 on ice · +2
    B. Faber
    #7 · D · MIN
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 25:04 on ice
    C. Bedard
    #98 · C · CHI
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:49 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Nov 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:44 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 a 2.8–2.4 Minnesota win at 56% Wild probability. This lean rests on Minnesota's underlying control: 52.0% 5v5 xG against Chicago's 42.0%, with Corsi splits of 48.0% to 46.0%. The expected-goals gap reflects cleaner shot quality than possession numbers suggest. Minnesota's PDO of 1.007 versus Chicago's 0.996 indicates both teams track to sustainable luck. The Wild are riding form—8-1-1 in their last 10.

    Matt Boldy is the axis. He carries 0.89 xG/60 with 22 goals and 18 assists, backed by 5 high-danger chances and a 13.7% shooting rate. Chicago must contain him. Robby Fabbri would provide secondary threat at 0.88 xG/60, but he's marked inactive after 2 goals and 3 assists; his 6.9% shooting left room for regression anyway.

    Tyler Bertuzzi generates for Chicago at 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals, 15 assists, and 7 high-danger chances—similar to Boldy's rate. His 18.0% shooting is unsustainable and has inflated his production. Connor Bedard sits at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals and 27 assists; his 11.8% shooting is closer to sustainable. Bedard's assist total masks that he's not the goal threat Bertuzzi is.

    Defensively, Minnesota leaks at Matt Kiersted; Chicago's is Anton Frondell. Both teams sit at 0% high-danger and rebound-goal rates—an unusual symmetry that limits upside in tight moments. Minnesota's form and underlying edge support the 56% forecast.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    MIN 56%
    56%
    MIN
    Model favorite
    56%
    44%
    MIN50CHI

    MIN by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MIN 2.8–2.4 CHI; 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 →CHI
    52.0%42.0%
    48.0%46.0%
    2.552.17
    2.402.94
    2.041.84
    1.932.41
    1.0070.996

    MIN holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 0.996) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    MIN
    8-1-1
    +16 GD · 3d rest
    CHI
    5-4-1
    +4 GD · 2d rest
    1.007
    MIN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Wild are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    MIN
    Expected in goal
    J. Wallstedt
    3 days rest1.000 last start
    Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    2 days rest.962 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next