Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater

Breakdown · NJD at OTT

Devils steal one from the Senators against the run of play

FinalTue, Dec 9

NJDNew Jersey Devils4 OTTOttawa Senators3

The verdict · stolen

The Devils stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.68–4.18 and won anyway.

NJD 4 · OTT 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:37 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

The Senators owned this game by every measure except the scoreboard. New Jersey won 4-3 despite trailing in expected goals 4.18–2.68, a 61–39 split that should have belonged to Ottawa. The Senators controlled 54% of shot attempts and 7 high-danger chances to 2. The Devils took the victory anyway.

This was goaltending variance crystallized. J. Markstrom's 0.921 save percentage (35 of 38) ran 1.18 goals ahead of expectation. L. Ullmark's 0.875 mark (28 of 32) ran 1.32 behind. The two-goal swing between the pipes was Ottawa's game surrendered.

The fracture came early in the third period. Cody Glass fired a wrist shot from the slot at 12:24 and the game's momentum shifted. Before that moment, Ottawa had dictated play. After, the Senators chased.

Even Ottawa's finish couldn't compensate. They scored twice from 26 rush attempts while New Jersey converted four from the same 26 chances—a perfect inversion. The Senators created five rebound opportunities, converting one. New Jersey created three and scored zero. The Devils still won.

Ottawa's power play was elite: three goals on 15 shots. Dominance. It mattered less than it should have. The Devils took what they didn't deserve and made it stick. The Senators got robbed.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 9

NJD

OTT

Devils steal one from the Senators against the run of play

Chances 2.7 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

NJD

2.68

OTT

4.18

39% of the chances61%

The board read NJD 4, OTT 3. The chances read NJD 2.7, OTT 4.2.

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

Luck check

NJD

+1.3

goals above expected

NJD2.68 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

OTT4.18 expected · 3 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

P1 01:36OTTD. BathersonPP0–1
P1 05:09NJDS. Nemec1–1
P1 12:59OTTT. StützlePP1–2
P1 17:59NJDA. Gritsyuk2–2
P2 04:21NJDP. Cotter3–2
P2 10:35OTTD. BathersonPP3–3
P3 12:24NJDC. Glass4–3

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

Where the shots came from

NJD

43 shots

Final

101 shots

OTT

58 shots

NJD OTT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NJDOTT

1 / 2

0.46 xG

High danger

1 / 7

1.62 xG

2 / 15

1.52 xG

Medium

2 / 16

1.82 xG

1 / 38

0.70 xG

Low

0 / 54

0.75 xG

High-danger looks: NJD 1 of 2, OTT 1 of 7.

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

In the net

B+

J. Markstrom

+1.2

NJD · 35/38

D-

L. Ullmark

−1.3

OTT · 28/32

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Devils steal one from the Senators 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 14–10

01:36OTTD. Bathersonpower play(B. Tkachuk, J. Sanderson)0–1
05:09NJDS. Nemec(C. Brown, A. Gritsyuk)1–1
12:59OTTT. Stützlepower play(B. Tkachuk, D. Cozens)1–2
17:59NJDA. Gritsyuk(C. Brown, C. Glass)2–2

2ndshots 9–10

04:21NJDP. Cotter3–2
10:35OTTD. Bathersonpower play(D. Cozens, T. Stützle)3–3

3rdshots 9–18

12:24NJDC. Glass(A. Gritsyuk, C. Brown)4–3

score reads NJD–OTT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.68

NJD chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.034

NJD puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

41.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.68Expected goals4.18

OTT 61% of the chance quality

32Shots on goal38

2High-danger chances7

55All attempts (Corsi)77

Adjusted for score: NJD 41% · OTT 59%

Faceoffs · OTT won60%off52%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NJD1 / 2 · 0.46 xG

OTT1 / 7 · 1.62 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NJD2 / 15 · 1.52 xG

OTT2 / 16 · 1.82 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NJD1 / 38 · 0.70 xG

OTT0 / 54 · 0.75 xG

OTT went 0-for-54 from low danger on 0.75 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NJD

4 G · 2.68 xG · +1.3

OTT

3 G · 4.18 xG · -1.2

012345

NJD finished +1.3 against expected, OTT -1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NJD

WRIST2/23

SLAP1/5

SNAP0/4

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND1/6

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/12

OTT

WRIST3/37

SLAP0/7

SNAP0/7

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/0

DEFLECTED0/2

OTHER0/19

NJD

OTT

Off the rush

4 G on 26

1.96 xG

2 G on 26

2.11 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.27 xG

1 G on 5

1.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 2-for-23, OTT 3-for-37. NJD 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

J. Markstrom

NJD · 35/38 · .921

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.6+0.6

Medium2/161.8-0.2

Low0/540.8+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

L. Ullmark

OTT · 28/32 · .875

-1.3

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.5-0.5

Medium2/151.5-0.5

Low1/380.7-0.3

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

101 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NJD

43 shots

Final

101 shots

OTT

58 shots

NJD OTT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD left, OTT 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

C. Brown

#16 · R · NJD

0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 15:36 on ice · +3

A. Gritsyuk

#81 · R · NJD

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 14:33 on ice · +3

T. Stützle

#18 · C · OTT

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:40 on ice · -3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:35 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 2.3–2.7 game, favoring Ottawa at 57% win probability—despite New Jersey's PDO regression potential.

Ottawa owns the underlying play. At 56.0% 5v5 xG%, the Senators generate better chances than New Jersey's 50.0%. That advantage extends to possession: 53.0% Corsi% for Ottawa versus New Jersey's 51.0%.

Both teams are currently struggling. New Jersey has surrendered a -10 goal differential over its last 10 games; Ottawa is -5. The Devils' 0.971 PDO signals they're running cold, primed for positive regression. Yet Ottawa's structural advantage is large enough that even accounting for New Jersey's likely improvement, the Senators remain the lean at 57%.

The offensive edge is visible. Timo Meier operates at 1.08 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists, backed by 3 high-danger goals at 6.7% shooting. Jack Hughes carries 0.88 xG/60 with 18 goals and 17 assists; his 11.5% shooting efficiency masks his moderate volume, and he has 1 high-danger goal. Brady Tkachuk counters at 1.19 xG/60 with 11 goals, 20 assists, 2 high-danger goals at 7.5% shooting. Dylan Cozens follows at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals, 15 assists, 1 high-danger goal at 9.5% shooting.

Defensively, both teams sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. Johnathan Kovacevic is New Jersey's weak link; Nick Jensen is Ottawa's. In a tight game, those spots matter.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 57%

57%

OTT

Model favorite

43%

57%

NJD50OTT

OTT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.3–2.7 OTT; 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

NJD← edge

edge →OTT

50.0%56.0%

51.0%53.0%

2.452.66

2.502.12

1.662.18

2.231.99

0.9710.993

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

NJD

3-7-0

-10 GD · 2d rest

OTT

4-6-0

-5 GD · 2d rest

0.971

NJD PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.993

OTT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.

Regression watch

The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
The Senators are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Devils are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

NJD

Expected in goal

J. Allen

2 days rest.857 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

OTT

Expected in goal

L. Ullmark

2 days rest.900 last start

Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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

NJD

Timo Meier13G 15A

1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh

Jack Hughes18G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh

OTT

Brady Tkachuk11G 20A

1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh

Dylan Cozens13G 15A

1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page