Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Wed, Dec 3 · the slate
Breakdown · WPG at MTL

Canadiens edge the Jets in a shootout

Final / OTWed, Dec 3
WPGWinnipeg Jets2MTLMontreal Canadiens3
The verdict · earned

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

WPG 2 · MTL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:47 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

Montreal's 3–2 shootout victory belied their superior play: they controlled 58% of expected goals (4.78–3.46) yet could not finish Winnipeg in regulation, a dangerous luxury in a league where even a half-decent goalie can steal a game.

And E. Comrie did exactly that. He made 29 saves on 31 shots for a 0.935 save percentage—2.78 goals better than expected. For a losing effort, that's an exceptional performance that only a more clinical Montreal team could overcome.

The Canadiens generated far higher-quality chances. Their expected goals per shot (0.072) dwarfed Winnipeg's (0.051), signaling a team that moved the puck with precision. Yet they squandered this advantage: 0 goals on 6 high-danger chances. That offensive misfire nearly cost them.

Montreal found redemption through brute-force efficiency on the rush: 2 goals on 35 chances. Winnipeg mirrored that output (2 on 27), but with inferior underlying play across the board. M. Scheifele (1G, 1A) and K. Connor (1G, 1A) carried the offensive load; D. DeMelo added an assist.

Cole Caufield ended it from the slot in the shootout—a snap shot that no amount of elite goaltending could deflect. Montreal's J. Dobes (30/32, 0.938 SV%) was nearly as strong as Comrie but didn't need to be; the Canadiens' 1.78-goal underperformance of their own xG was an indulgence they could afford. Winnipeg's 1.46-goal miss was terminal.

The lesson: control the play and convert opportunistically. Montreal did the first, barely the second. They won anyway. Next time, Comrie might not be this good.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 3
WPG
2
MTL
3

Canadiens edge the Jets in a shootout

Chances 3.5 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
3.46
MTL
4.78
42% of the chances58%

The board read WPG 2, MTL 3. The chances read WPG 3.5, MTL 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
−1.8
goals above expected
MTL4.78 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG3.46 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 18:35WPGM. Scheifele1–0
  2. P2 09:59MTLJ. SlafkovskýPP1–1
  3. P2 11:53WPGK. Connor2–1
  4. P2 14:03MTLO. Kapanen2–2
  5. SO 00:00MTLC. CaufieldPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
51 shots
2
Final
105 shots
MTL
54 shots
3
WPG attackMTL attack
WPG MTL Goal
51
shots · 2 in
54
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGMTL
1 / 8
1.62 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.68 xG
1 / 13
1.31 xG
Medium
2 / 25
2.58 xG
0 / 47
0.54 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.52 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 8, MTL 0 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
E. Comrie
+2.8
WPG · 29/31
B+
J. Dobes
+1.5
MTL · 30/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens edge the Jets 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 11–11
  1. 18:35WPGM. Scheifele(K. Connor, D. DeMelo)1–0
2ndshots 12–8
  1. 09:59MTLJ. Slafkovskýpower play(C. Caufield, N. Suzuki)1–1
  2. 11:53WPGK. Connor(G. Vilardi, M. Scheifele)2–1
  3. 14:03MTLO. Kapanen(I. Demidov, A. Texier)2–2
3rdshots 8–7no goals
    OTshots 1–5no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00MTLC. Caufieldpower play2–2

      score reads WPG–MTL

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.78
      MTL chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −1.8
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.001
      MTL puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      49.3%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.46Expected goals4.78
      MTL 58% of the chance quality
      32Shots on goal31
      8High-danger chances6
      68All attempts (Corsi)66
      Adjusted for score: WPG 50% · MTL 50%
      Faceoffs · MTL won50%off79%neu60%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      WPG1 / 8 · 1.62 xG
      MTL0 / 6 · 1.68 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      WPG1 / 13 · 1.31 xG
      MTL2 / 25 · 2.58 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      WPG0 / 47 · 0.54 xG
      MTL0 / 35 · 0.52 xG

      MTL went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.68 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      WPG
      2 G · 3.46 xG · -1.5
      MTL
      3 G · 4.78 xG · -1.8
      0123456

      WPG finished -1.5 against expected, MTL -1.8.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      WPG
      SNAP2/28
      WRIST0/8
      TIP IN0/6
      SLAP0/3
      BACKHAND0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      POKE0/1
      OTHER0/20
      MTL
      SNAP2/42
      WRIST0/3
      TIP IN0/2
      SLAP0/2
      BACKHAND0/2
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      POKE0/0
      OTHER0/15
      WPG
      MTL
      Off the rush
      2 G on 27
      2.55 xG
      2 G on 35
      3.35 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 4
      0.50 xG
      0 G on 5
      0.78 xG

      Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 2-for-28, MTL 2-for-42. WPG 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
      E. Comrie
      WPG · 29/31 · .935
      +2.8
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/61.7+1.7
      Medium2/252.6+0.6
      Low0/350.5+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

      J. Dobes
      MTL · 30/32 · .938
      +1.5
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/81.6+0.6
      Medium1/131.3+0.3
      Low0/470.5+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

      105 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      WPG
      51 shots
      2
      Final
      105 shots
      MTL
      54 shots
      3
      WPG attackMTL attack
      WPG MTL Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, MTL 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. Scheifele
      #55 · C · WPG
      1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:06 on ice · +1
      K. Connor
      #81 · L · WPG
      1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:07 on ice · +1
      D. DeMelo
      #2 · D · WPG
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:52 on ice · -1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Wed, Dec 3
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:46 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 projection model has Montreal at 52% win probability in a 2.5-2.6 game—a true pick'em.

      Both teams are floundering. The Canadiens sit at minus-11 goal differential over their last 10 games; Winnipeg is minus-6. On the season's 5v5 play, they're indistinguishable: each posts 48.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%. The separation emerges through luck. Montreal's PDO of 1.018 runs hot, inviting regression. Winnipeg's 0.998 reflects model conservatism.

      The Canadiens own a rest advantage: four days since their last game versus one for Winnipeg. T. Milic faces back-to-back duty, a spot that often yields backup time or a fatigued starter. Montreal's edge extends through the roster.

      Cole Caufield (MTL) drives the night at 0.97 xG/60, 33 goals, 16 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and a 20.0% shooting rate. That efficiency leaves room for variance. Winnipeg's defense lacks the architecture to bottle him up. Nino Niederreiter (WPG) answers with 0.87 xG/60, 6 goals, 6 assists, 3 high-danger goals, and 8.6% shooting—efficient volume that Montreal must contain. Kyle Connor (WPG) trails only slightly: 0.83 xG/60, 25 goals, 30 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and a 13.0% shooting rate that ranks elite. Oliver Kapanen (MTL) supports the home attack with 0.83 xG/60, 19 goals, 12 assists, 4 high-danger goals, and 17.8% shooting.

      The underlying play is nearly identical. What tilts Montreal? Rest, goaltending depth, and Caufield's scoring rate. Winnipeg stays closer to true talent, a subtle edge masked by recent form. The model is right: call it a coin flip with a hair to Montreal.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      MTL 52%
      52%
      MTL
      Model favorite
      48%
      52%
      WPG50MTL

      MTL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score WPG 2.5–2.6 MTL; 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
      WPG← edge
      edge →MTL
      48.0%48.0%
      49.0%49.0%
      2.342.41
      2.552.62
      1.902.24
      2.101.96
      0.9981.018

      MTL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      WPG
      4-6-0
      -6 GD · 1d rest
      MTL
      4-5-1
      -11 GD · 4d rest
      0.998
      WPG PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.018
      MTL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Regression watch
      • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Things to watch
      • T. Milic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Canadiens are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
      • The Jets are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
      • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
      • The Canadiens have 3 more days of rest.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      WPG
      Expected in goal
      T. Milic
      back-to-back.882 last start
      Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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.

      MTL
      Expected in goal
      J. Dobes
      4 days rest.806 last start
      Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
      WPG
      Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
      0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
      Kyle Connor25G 30A
      0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
      MTL
      Cole Caufield33G 16A
      0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
      Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
      0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page