Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater

Breakdown · WPG at EDM

Oilers run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Dec 6

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 2 · EDM 6

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:15 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

Edmonton's 6-2 demolition of Winnipeg was backed by dominant underlying metrics — the Oilers held 61% of expected goals (3.50–2.22). They also exceeded that projection by 2.50 goals, marking significant overperformance.

The depth of Edmonton's control became clear across every dimension. They held 56% of shot attempts (27–21) and generated four high-danger chances to Winnipeg's zero. The gap in offensive quality was stark: Edmonton's shots carried 0.075 expected goals each, while Winnipeg's managed just 0.046. It wasn't volume — it was precision.

Winnipeg struggled to generate opportunities and got no fortune with the few they created. E. Comrie faced fewer scoring chances than his workload would suggest, underperforming his expected value by 1.92 goals. T. Milic, brought in for relief, managed to steal 1.5 goals above expected, a rare bright spot in a lopsided evening.

Edmonton's rush game was lethal. They converted four goals on 22 rush attempts, a devastating rate. Winnipeg managed two goals on 23 rush chances — respectable in isolation, but irrelevant against Edmonton's efficiency.

S. Skinner (EDM) stopped 19 of 21 shots (0.905 SV%) without requiring dramatics. The Oilers' dominance was its own defense.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 6

WPG

EDM

Oilers run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.2 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

2.22

EDM

3.50

39% of the chances61%

The board read WPG 2, EDM 6. The chances read WPG 2.2, EDM 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

EDM

+2.5

goals above expected

EDM3.50 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG2.22 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Oilers scored 2.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 03:00EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins0–1
P1 04:37EDML. Draisaitl0–2
P1 07:24EDMM. Savoie0–3
P1 13:31EDME. BouchardPP0–4
P2 02:42EDMC. Lazar0–5
P3 04:12WPGG. Vilardi1–5
P3 13:29EDMD. Tomasek1–6

+1 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

WPG

35 shots

Final

76 shots

EDM

41 shots

WPG EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGEDM

0 / 0

0.00 xG

High danger

1 / 4

0.80 xG

1 / 15

1.61 xG

Medium

5 / 21

2.41 xG

1 / 33

0.61 xG

Low

0 / 22

0.30 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 0 of 0, EDM 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

T. Milic

+1.5

WPG · 9/11

S. Skinner

+0.2

EDM · 19/21

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 5–16

03:00EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins(C. McDavid, Z. Hyman)0–1
04:37EDML. Draisaitl(E. Bouchard)0–2
07:24EDMM. Savoie(M. Ekholm, V. Podkolzin)0–3
13:31EDME. Bouchardpower play(L. Draisaitl, C. McDavid)0–4

2ndshots 4–5

02:42EDMC. Lazar(M. Janmark, T. Emberson)0–5

3rdshots 12–6

04:12WPGG. Vilardi(M. Scheifele, K. Connor)1–5
13:29EDMD. Tomasek(T. Frederic)1–6
15:25WPGC. Koepke2–6

score reads WPG–EDM

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.50

EDM chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.086

EDM puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.22Expected goals3.50

EDM 61% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal27

0High-danger chances4

48All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: WPG 58% · EDM 42%

Faceoffs · EDM won67%off40%neu57%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG0 / 0 · 0.00 xG

EDM1 / 4 · 0.80 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG1 / 15 · 1.61 xG

EDM5 / 21 · 2.41 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG1 / 33 · 0.61 xG

EDM0 / 22 · 0.30 xG

EDM went 5-for-21 from medium danger on 2.41 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

2 G · 2.22 xG · -0.2

EDM

6 G · 3.50 xG · +2.5

01234567

WPG finished -0.2 against expected, EDM +2.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

SNAP0/21

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/1

WRIST1/2

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND1/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/13

EDM

SNAP1/28

SLAP1/4

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND2/4

WRIST2/2

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/6

WPG

EDM

Off the rush

2 G on 23

1.71 xG

4 G on 22

2.19 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

2 G on 9

1.17 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-21, EDM 1-for-28. EDM 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

E. Comrie

WPG · 12/16 · .750

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.8-0.2

Medium5/212.4-2.6

Low0/220.3+0.3

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

T. Milic

WPG · 9/11 · .818

+1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.8-0.2

Medium5/212.4-2.6

Low0/220.3+0.3

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. Skinner

EDM · 19/21 · .905

+0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

Medium1/151.6+0.6

Low1/330.6-0.4

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

35 shots

Final

76 shots

EDM

41 shots

WPG EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, EDM 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

E. Bouchard

#2 · D · EDM

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:51 on ice · -1

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 18:38 on ice

L. Draisaitl

#29 · C · EDM

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 16:20 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 6

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:14 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 Oilers are favored—the model projects this game with the Oilers at 56% win probability, the score expectation WPG 2.4–2.7 EDM.

The underlying play explains why. The Oilers control the 5v5 game at 52.0% xG% against Winnipeg's 48.0%. That edge in expected goals translates to better shot quality and more dangerous chances.

But there's a complication: the Oilers are running cold. Their PDO of 0.982 suggests they're underperforming their actual play—puck luck hasn't followed them. That's the regression watch. When a team this good at generating chances also scores at below-normal rates, positive regression typically follows.

Winnipeg's underlying metrics are closer than the win probability suggests. Their 5v5 Corsi% is 49.0% against Edmonton's 50.0%, a marginal gap in shot volume. Their PDO of 0.998 means they've benefited from slightly above-average puck luck, which makes their gap feel smaller than it plays.

The key separators are individual matchups. Nino Niederreiter has been Winnipeg's highest-impact forward, generating 0.87 xG/60 with 6G 6A and 3 HD goals on an 8.6% shooting rate. Kyle Connor provides secondary offensive punch at 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A with 2 HD goals on a 13.0% shooting clip.

Edmonton counters with Zach Hyman leading at 1.23 xG/60, 14G 13A with just 1 HD goal despite his 13.0% shooting rate. Connor McDavid's line is the real engine: 0.92 xG/60, 25G 33A with 5 HD goals on 13.7% shooting. McDavid's ability to convert high-danger chances is what separates this matchup—his finishing rate sits well above Niederreiter's.

One defensive weak link worth monitoring for each side: Colin Miller for Winnipeg, Jake Walman for Edmonton. Both could see increased assignment responsibility if their team needs tighter coverage against the opposition's best.

Neither team has been particularly effective at generating or preventing hard-to-track goal types—both sit at 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. That suggests the game will be decided in the areas where metrics exist: shot quality, which Edmonton's 52.0% xG% advantage controls.

The model's edge for Edmonton is real, and the PDO regression narrative adds conviction. Winnipeg will need to match Edmonton's shot quality or post an outlier efficiency performance—unlikely when Connor McDavid is in the lineup.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 56%

56%

EDM

Model favorite

44%

56%

WPG50EDM

EDM by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.4–2.7 EDM; 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 →EDM

48.0%52.0%

49.0%50.0%

2.342.64

2.552.47

1.902.13

2.102.29

0.9980.982

EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.982) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

WPG

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

EDM

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.982

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page