Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Fri, Nov 28 · the slate
Breakdown · COL at MIN

Wild edge the Avalanche in a shootout

Final / OTFri, Nov 28
COLColorado Avalanche2MINMinnesota Wild3
The verdict · earned

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

COL 2 · MIN 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:53 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

Both goalies significantly outperformed expected—S. Wedgewood (COL) +3.21, J. Wallstedt (MIN) +2.34. A game this close to even—the Wild held a slight edge in expected goals (5.21–4.34) and high-danger chances (9–7), while shot attempts split nearly 50-50—hinged on goaltending, not team play.

The Wild generated higher-quality chances (0.075 xG per shot vs. the Avalanche's 0.052), converting twice on the rush from 35 chances. The Avalanche also scored twice on 33 rush attempts. The Wild created 7 rebound opportunities but converted none; the Avalanche created 3 with the same result.

Both teams massively underperformed their expected goals. The Wild left 2.21 on the table; the Avalanche left 2.34. In a shootout, none of that mattered.

Matt Boldy's wrist shot from the doorstep won it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 28
COL
2
MIN
3

Wild edge the Avalanche in a shootout

Chances 4.3 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
4.34
MIN
5.21
45% of the chances55%

The board read COL 2, MIN 3. The chances read COL 4.3, MIN 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
−2.2
goals above expected
MIN5.21 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
COL4.34 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Avalanche 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 14:54COLN. MacKinnon1–0
  2. P2 12:00MINK. Kaprizov1–1
  3. P2 18:03MINK. Kaprizov1–2
  4. P3 11:08COLG. Landeskog2–2
  5. SO 00:00MINM. ZuccarelloPP2–2
  6. SO 00:00COLM. NecasPP2–2
  7. SO 00:00MINM. BoldyPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
63 shots
3
Final
120 shots
MIN
57 shots
4
COL attackMIN attack
COL MIN Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

63
shots · 3 in
57
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLMIN
2 / 7
1.47 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.39 xG
0 / 19
2.04 xG
Medium
1 / 18
2.21 xG
0 / 57
0.82 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.61 xG

High-danger looks: COL 2 of 7, MIN 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Wedgewood
+3.2
COL · 37/39
A
J. Wallstedt
+2.3
MIN · 39/41
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild edge the Avalanche in a shootout

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 14–12
  1. 14:54COLN. MacKinnon(A. Lehkonen)1–0
2ndshots 10–17
  1. 12:00MINK. Kaprizov(Z. Buium, M. Zuccarello)1–1
  2. 18:03MINK. Kaprizov(R. Hartman, Y. Trenin)1–2
3rdshots 14–10
  1. 11:08COLG. Landeskog(N. MacKinnon, C. Makar)2–2
OTshots 3–0no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00MINM. Zuccarellopower play2–2
    2. 00:00COLM. Necaspower play2–2
    3. 00:00MINM. Boldypower play2–2

    score reads COL–MIN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.21
    MIN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.005
    MIN puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    45.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.34Expected goals5.21
    MIN 55% of the chance quality
    41Shots on goal39
    7High-danger chances9
    83All attempts (Corsi)69
    Adjusted for score: COL 55% · MIN 45%
    Faceoffs · MIN won56%off50%neu11%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    COL2 / 7 · 1.47 xG
    MIN1 / 9 · 2.39 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    COL0 / 19 · 2.04 xG
    MIN1 / 18 · 2.21 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    COL0 / 57 · 0.82 xG
    MIN0 / 42 · 0.61 xG

    COL went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.04 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    COL
    2 G · 4.34 xG · -2.3
    MIN
    3 G · 5.21 xG · -2.2
    0123456

    COL finished -2.3 against expected, MIN -2.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    COL
    WRIST1/30
    SNAP1/16
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/4
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BACKHAND0/0
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/23
    MIN
    WRIST0/35
    SNAP1/6
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/1
    DEFLECTED1/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/15
    COL
    MIN
    Off the rush
    2 G on 33
    2.62 xG
    2 G on 35
    3.12 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.58 xG
    0 G on 7
    1.59 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 1-for-30, MIN 0-for-35. COL scored 2 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
    S. Wedgewood
    COL · 37/39 · .949
    +3.2
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/92.4+1.4
    Medium1/182.2+1.2
    Low0/420.6+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

    J. Wallstedt
    MIN · 39/41 · .951
    +2.3
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/71.5-0.5
    Medium0/192.0+2.0
    Low0/570.8+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

    120 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    COL
    63 shots
    3
    Final
    120 shots
    MIN
    57 shots
    4
    COL attackMIN attack
    COL MIN Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — COL left, MIN 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
    K. Kaprizov
    #97 · L · MIN
    2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 25:25 on ice · +1
    N. MacKinnon
    #29 · C · COL
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:58 on ice · +2
    C. Makar
    #8 · D · COL
    0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 27:50 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Nov 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:52 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 2.7 - 2.5 Avalanche win with Colorado at 53% probability. This is about as close to a coin flip as the numbers get.

    Colorado owns the underlying play. The Avalanche drive 57.0% 5v5 xG against 52.0% for Minnesota, and their Corsi advantage is even starker at 57.0% to 48.0%. That territorial tilt should show up on the scoreboard—yet Colorado's 1.021 PDO means the team is running hot and due for some regression. Minnesota sits at 1.007, closer to the mean.

    The goaltending matchup hinges on wear: F. Gustavsson plays on a back-to-back, as does M. Blackwood. Minnesota may turn to a backup, or Gustavsson takes the net tired. Either way, this is leverage for a team that already dominates play.

    Colorado's scoring punch comes from depth. Artturi Lehkonen carries 1.11 xG/60 with 18G 22A and 6 high-danger goals at a 14.9% shooting rate. Ross Colton sits at 1.10 xG/60, though his 4.9% shot conversion (7G 15A, 1 HD goal) suggests he's running below expectation—a risk if variance swings back.

    Minnesota counters with Matt Boldy, who leads with 22G and a 0.89 xG/60 rate; his 5 high-danger goals and 13.7% shooting rate make him efficient, not fluky. Robby Fabbri (0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A, 1 HD goal, 6.9% shooting) is marked inactive, removing Minnesota's second scorer.

    The deeper issue for both teams: neither generates separation through high-danger scoring. Colorado sits at 0% HD goal and rebound-goal rates—a statistical artifact that won't hold. Minnesota's 0% rates mirror that fragility. The defensive weak link for Colorado is Nazem Kadri; Matt Kiersted fills that role for Minnesota.

    Colorado has the edge. They control play throughout, benefit from Minnesota's goaltending uncertainty, and face a depleted roster. But 53% is as tight as edges get.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    COL 53%
    53%
    COL
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    COL50MIN

    COL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score COL 2.7–2.5 MIN; 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
    COL← edge
    edge →MIN
    57.0%52.0%
    57.0%48.0%
    3.032.55
    2.302.40
    2.632.04
    1.561.93
    1.0211.007

    COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 1.007) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    COL
    10-0-0
    +32 GD · 1d rest
    MIN
    8-1-1
    +16 GD · 1d rest
    1.021
    COL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.007
    MIN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
    • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
    • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • F. Gustavsson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • M. Blackwood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    COL
    Expected in goal
    M. Blackwood
    back-to-back1.000 last start
    Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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.

    MIN
    Expected in goal
    F. Gustavsson
    back-to-back.919 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.

    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
    COL
    Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
    1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
    Ross Colton7G 15A
    1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page