Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
Breakdown · DET at CBJ

Blue Jackets steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Blue Jackets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 5.27–3.80 and won anyway.

DET 5 · CBJ 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:54 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

Columbus won 6-5 in a shootout despite controlling just 42% of expected goals. Detroit dominated the xG battle with 58% at even strength and superior shot quality at 0.089 per shot to Columbus's 0.052. The scoreboard does not match the game.

Columbus scored twice from low-danger areas that most goalies save; Detroit leaked four from the same spots. E. Merzlikins was a wall—92% on 12 high-danger chances—while C. Talbot ceded 1.2 goals beyond expected and took the loss. Columbus overperformed their xG by 2.20.

The rush game distributed equally: Columbus buried 2 on 32 rush chances; Detroit buried 4 on 36. The power play belonged entirely to the visitors—3 goals on 8 shots, 0.79 xG.

K. Marchenko's wrist shot from the slot in the shootout decided it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 4
DET
5
CBJ
6

Blue Jackets steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

Chances 5.3 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
5.27
CBJ
3.80
58% of the chances42%

The board read DET 5, CBJ 6. The chances read DET 5.3, CBJ 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
+2.2
goals above expected
CBJ3.80 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
DET5.27 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blue Jackets scored 2.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 17:55CBJI. Provorov0–1
  2. P2 01:09DETD. LarkinPP1–1
  3. P2 05:18CBJK. MarchenkoPP1–2
  4. P2 07:11CBJK. Johnson1–3
  5. P2 09:08DETL. RaymondPP2–3
  6. P2 10:20DETJ. van RiemsdykPP3–3
  7. P2 13:50CBJA. FantilliPP3–4
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
49 shots
5
Final
103 shots
CBJ
54 shots
7
DET attackCBJ attack
DET CBJ Goal

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

49
shots · 5 in
54
shots · 7 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETCBJ
1 / 12
3.05 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.60 xG
0 / 10
1.39 xG
Medium
2 / 23
2.57 xG
4 / 37
0.82 xG
Low
2 / 47
0.63 xG

High-danger looks: DET 1 of 12, CBJ 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
E. Merzlikins
+0.3
CBJ · 28/33
D-
C. Talbot
−1.2
DET · 27/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets steal one from the Red Wings 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 6–8
  1. 17:55CBJI. Provorov(B. Gaunce)0–1
2ndshots 16–9
  1. 01:09DETD. Larkinpower play(M. Seider, L. Raymond)1–1
  2. 05:18CBJK. Marchenkopower play(Z. Werenski, S. Monahan)1–2
  3. 07:11CBJK. Johnson(C. Sillinger, D. Mateychuk)1–3
  4. 09:08DETL. Raymondpower play(A. Sandin-Pellikka, P. Kane)2–3
  5. 10:20DETJ. van Riemsdykpower play(A. Copp, E. Finnie)3–3
  6. 13:50CBJA. Fantillipower play(Z. Werenski, S. Monahan)3–4
3rdshots 11–14
  1. 09:35DETP. Kane(M. Seider, A. Copp)4–4
  2. 11:38DETA. DeBrincat5–4
  3. 18:29CBJA. Fantillipower play(Z. Werenski, S. Monahan)5–5
OTshots 0–1no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CBJK. Johnsonpower play5–5
    2. 00:00CBJK. Marchenkopower play5–5

    score reads DET–CBJ

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.80
    CBJ chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    0.984
    CBJ puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    55.3%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.27Expected goals3.80
    DET 58% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal32
    12High-danger chances3
    59All attempts (Corsi)73
    Adjusted for score: DET 46% · CBJ 54%
    Faceoffs · CBJ won64%off50%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DET1 / 12 · 3.05 xG
    CBJ1 / 3 · 0.60 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DET0 / 10 · 1.39 xG
    CBJ2 / 23 · 2.57 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DET4 / 37 · 0.82 xG
    CBJ2 / 47 · 0.63 xG

    DET went 4-for-37 from low danger on 0.82 expected goals — 3.2 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DET
    5 G · 5.27 xG · -0.3
    CBJ
    6 G · 3.80 xG · +2.2
    01234567

    DET finished -0.3 against expected, CBJ +2.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DET
    SNAP0/17
    WRIST3/18
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    TIP IN1/1
    BAT0/1
    POKE1/1
    OTHER0/12
    CBJ
    SNAP3/22
    WRIST1/11
    SLAP1/8
    BACKHAND0/7
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    TIP IN0/1
    BAT0/1
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/22
    DET
    CBJ
    Off the rush
    4 G on 36
    3.86 xG
    2 G on 32
    2.85 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    0.98 xG
    1 G on 2
    0.40 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: DET went 0-for-17, CBJ 3-for-22. DET scored 4 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
    C. Talbot
    DET · 27/32 · .844
    -1.2
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.6-0.4
    Medium2/232.6+0.6
    Low2/470.6-1.4

    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

    E. Merzlikins
    CBJ · 28/33 · .848
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/123.0+2.0
    Medium0/101.4+1.4
    Low4/370.8-3.2

    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

    103 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DET
    49 shots
    5
    Final
    103 shots
    CBJ
    54 shots
    7
    DET attackCBJ attack
    DET CBJ 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 — DET left, CBJ 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
    Z. Werenski
    #8 · D · CBJ
    0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 28:29 on ice · +2
    S. Monahan
    #23 · C · CBJ
    0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 19:54 on ice · +1
    M. Seider
    #53 · D · DET
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 28:34 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Dec 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:53 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 2.4 to 2.7 goal range with Columbus favored at 55% win probability. This lean stems from Columbus's sustained edge in shot quality and volume.

    The Blue Jackets dominate the underlying metrics. They lead in expected goals (52.0% xG to 49.0%), meaning their shot mix is more dangerous. They also lead in shot attempts (51.0% Corsi to 49.0%), the volume metric that tends to predict outcomes over large samples. PDO favors Columbus slightly (1.003 to 0.985), a sign they're not just getting lucky but converting at a sustainable clip while Detroit falls marginally short.

    Detroit's offense depends heavily on Alex DeBrincat. He generates 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes—a top-tier rate—and has converted that into 17 goals on a 9.0% shooting percentage, a rate suggesting some room for regression. Marco Kasper offers secondary production at 0.81 xG/60, though his 6.1% shooting rate on 7 goals signals underperformance relative to his opportunities.

    Columbus counters with both depth and conversion. Boone Jenner leads at 0.98 xG/60 and has scored 11 goals on a 9.6% rate, indicating he's converting near expected value. Mathieu Olivier contributes 12 goals on an outlier 13.3% shooting percentage—a rate unlikely to sustain—though he generates 0.89 xG/60, a solid secondary rate.

    Both teams struggle to finish high-danger chances. Each records zero high-danger goals and zero rebound goals, a concerning sign for sustained scoring. Detroit's defensive vulnerability centers on Axel Sandin-Pellikka, while Conor Garland represents Columbus's weak point in the defensive zone.

    The model's lean on Columbus reflects their repeatable edge in shot generation. Detroit has the individual talent—particularly DeBrincat's scoring touch—to exceed expectations, but Columbus's volume advantage translates more reliably into wins.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CBJ 55%
    55%
    CBJ
    Model favorite
    45%
    55%
    DET50CBJ

    CBJ by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.4–2.7 CBJ; 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
    DET← edge
    edge →CBJ
    49.0%52.0%
    49.0%51.0%
    2.382.63
    2.502.43
    1.732.12
    2.071.98
    0.9851.003

    CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.003) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    DET
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    CBJ
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.985
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.003
    CBJ PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    DET
    Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
    0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
    Marco Kasper7G 8A
    0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
    CBJ
    Boone Jenner11G 21A
    0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
    Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
    0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next