Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
← Tue, Dec 2 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at COL

Avalanche hold off the Canucks

FinalTue, Dec 2
VANVancouver Canucks1COLColorado Avalanche3
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 1 · COL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:41 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

Vancouver's shooting collapse explains Colorado's 3–1 win. The Avalanche dominated shot volume (31 attempts, 60%) and held a 4.15–2.94 expected-goals edge, but the Canucks squandered 2.94 xG to score just one goal—a 1.94-goal underperformance that inflated Colorado's margin.

The Avalanche controlled through the rush, converting two of 28 odd-man chances. They attacked the net effectively, generating three rebound opportunities and converting one. Colorado's goaltending was clinical: M. Blackwood stopped 10 of 10 shots with a +1.40 expected-save performance, while S. Wedgewood added 0.54 above expected (10–11). K. Lankinen (VAN) delivered an elite 28-save outing (+1.15), but individual excellence cannot overcome a skaters' collapse.

Nathan MacKinnon provided the decisive moments, finishing with two goals in 22:15. His slap shot from the high slot in the second period proved pivotal. G. Landeskog supplied two assists in 16:47, while D. Toews added one in 21:39.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 2
VAN
1
COL
3

Avalanche hold off the Canucks

Chances 2.9 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.94
COL
4.15
42% of the chances59%

The board read VAN 1, COL 3. The chances read VAN 2.9, COL 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
−1.1
goals above expected
COL4.15 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.94 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 1.9 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 02:55VANL. Karlsson1–0
  2. P1 19:23COLN. MacKinnon1–1
  3. P2 13:52COLB. Nelson1–2
  4. P2 19:26COLN. MacKinnon1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
39 shots
1
Final
90 shots
COL
51 shots
3
VAN attackCOL attack
VAN COL Goal
39
shots · 1 in
51
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANCOL
0 / 4
1.26 xG
High danger
2 / 6
2.19 xG
1 / 10
1.09 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.22 xG
0 / 44
0.59 xG
Low
0 / 44
0.73 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
M. Blackwood
+2.9
COL · 10/10
A
S. Wedgewood
+1.9
COL · 10/11
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche hold off the Canucks

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 8–14
  1. 02:55VANL. Karlsson(A. Bains, A. Räty)1–0
  2. 19:23COLN. MacKinnon(D. Toews, S. Malinski)1–1
2ndshots 5–12
  1. 13:52COLB. Nelson(G. Landeskog, R. Colton)1–2
  2. 19:26COLN. MacKinnon(G. Landeskog, J. Manson)1–3
3rdshots 8–5no goals

    score reads VAN–COL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.15
    COL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.030
    COL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    52.1%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.94Expected goals4.15
    COL 59% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal31
    4High-danger chances6
    58All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: VAN 50% · COL 50%
    Faceoffs · COL won53%off50%neu56%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VAN0 / 4 · 1.26 xG
    COL2 / 6 · 2.19 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VAN1 / 10 · 1.09 xG
    COL1 / 13 · 1.22 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VAN0 / 44 · 0.59 xG
    COL0 / 44 · 0.73 xG

    VAN went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.26 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VAN
    1 G · 2.94 xG · -1.9
    COL
    3 G · 4.15 xG · -1.1
    012345

    VAN finished -1.9 against expected, COL -1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VAN
    WRIST0/21
    SNAP0/9
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    BACKHAND1/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/19
    COL
    WRIST0/27
    SNAP2/9
    SLAP1/6
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/12
    VAN
    COL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 26
    2.41 xG
    2 G on 28
    2.32 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.32 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.36 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-21, COL 0-for-27. 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
    K. Lankinen
    VAN · 28/31 · .903
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/62.2+0.2
    Medium1/131.2+0.2
    Low0/440.7+0.7

    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

    M. Blackwood
    COL · 10/10 · 1.000
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/41.3+1.3
    Medium1/101.1+0.1
    Low0/440.6+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

    S. Wedgewood
    COL · 10/11 · .909
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/41.3+1.3
    Medium1/101.1+0.1
    Low0/440.6+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

    90 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    VAN
    39 shots
    1
    Final
    90 shots
    COL
    51 shots
    3
    VAN attackCOL attack
    VAN COL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, COL 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
    N. MacKinnon
    #29 · C · COL
    2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 22:15 on ice · +2
    G. Landeskog
    #92 · L · COL
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:47 on ice · +2
    D. Toews
    #7 · D · COL
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:39 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Dec 2
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:40 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

    Colorado enters as heavy favorites: the model projects a 2.3–3.1 game, giving the Avalanche 63% win probability.

    Form tells the story upfront. Denver sits 9-0-1 in their last 10, while Vancouver deteriorates at -9 goal differential over the same stretch. The underlying structure reinforces the gap: Colorado dominates at 57.0% expected goals and 57.0% Corsi at 5v5, compared to Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. That edge in territorial and shot-quality play typically persists.

    PDO introduces a complication. The Avalanche are running 1.021—well above neutral and due for regression. Vancouver sits at 0.974, running cold and due to improve. The regression will narrow the gap, but not enough to overturn Colorado's structural advantage.

    On the Vancouver side, Filip Chytil merits close attention: he's generating 1.03 expected goals per 60 with a 15.0% shooting rate, yet has only 3 goals and 0 assists. He owns 1 high-danger goal, suggesting he's leaving production on the board. Drew O'Connor presents differently: 13 goals and 11 assists on a modest 0.85 xG/60, backed by an 11.8% shooting rate and 3 high-danger goals. He's punching above his underlying creation.

    For Colorado, Artturi Lehkonen anchors the offense: 18 goals, 22 assists, 1.11 xG/60, 6 high-danger goals, 14.9% shooting rate. Ross Colton mirrors the expected-goal rate at 1.10 xG/60 but operates on a 4.9% shooting rate; his 7 goals and 15 assists suggest either efficiency will regress or his underlying play deserves more respect. He has 1 high-danger goal.

    Colorado should control this game. When PDO normalizes, the margin compresses—but never enough to flip the outcome.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    COL 63%
    63%
    COL
    Model favorite
    37%
    63%
    VAN50COL

    COL by 26 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.3–3.1 COL; 17% 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
    VAN← edge
    edge →COL
    44.0%57.0%
    46.0%57.0%
    2.223.03
    2.812.30
    1.602.63
    2.561.56
    0.9741.021

    COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    VAN
    2-5-3
    -9 GD · 2d rest
    COL
    9-0-1
    +27 GD · 3d rest
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.021
    COL 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 44.0%.
    • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Avalanche are the hotter team by points pace (9-0-1 in their last 10).
    • The Canucks are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    VAN
    Expected in goal
    K. Lankinen
    2 days rest.913 last start
    Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    COL
    Expected in goal
    M. Blackwood
    3 days rest.913 last start
    Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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
    VAN
    Filip Chytil3G 0A
    1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Drew O'Connor13G 11A
    0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page