Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater

Breakdown · DAL at MIN

Wild run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Dec 11

The verdict · earned

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

DAL 2 · MIN 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:01 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

Minnesota's 5-2 victory was upheld by underlying metrics—only J. Oettinger's overperformance kept the margin respectable. With 27 saves and a 0.900 SV% (+2.48 vs expected), the Dallas goalie nearly disguised what should have been a rout. The Wild controlled 78% of expected goals (5.48–1.59), a ratio that predicts a much uglier scoreline under average goaltending.

Dominance cut across every measure. Minnesota took 64% of shot attempts (32–18) and created 10 high-danger chances to Dallas's 1. The quality gap exceeded volume: the Wild averaged 0.083 xG per shot versus Dallas's 0.029, meaning the Stars generated chances league-average goaltending stops routinely. Oettinger faced relentless pressure. F. Gustavsson's 16 saves in 18 chances operated against lower-danger traffic.

Dallas's two goals came from low-danger areas—the kind routinely saved. Minnesota showed precision in higher-leverage spots: 2 goals on 26 rush chances, 5 rebound opportunities with 1 converted. One team overwhelmed the other in every way that mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 11

DAL

MIN

Wild run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.6 – 5.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

1.59

MIN

5.48

22% of the chances78%

The board read DAL 2, MIN 5. The chances read DAL 1.6, MIN 5.5.

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

Luck check

MIN

−0.5

goals above expected

MIN5.48 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

DAL1.59 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

P1 09:32DALJ. RobertsonPP1–0
P1 16:10MINJ. Eriksson Ek1–1
P2 10:19DALM. HeiskanenSH2–1
P2 17:30MINZ. Bogosian2–2
P3 08:40MINM. Johansson2–3
P3 18:29MINM. BoldyEN2–4
P3 19:10MINM. JohanssonEN2–5

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

Where the shots came from

DAL

29 shots

Final

80 shots

MIN

51 shots

DAL MIN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALMIN

0 / 1

0.21 xG

High danger

2 / 10

3.25 xG

0 / 10

0.98 xG

Medium

2 / 13

1.57 xG

2 / 44

0.41 xG

Low

1 / 43

0.65 xG

The Wild buried 2 of 10 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Oettinger

+2.5

DAL · 27/30

F. Gustavsson

−0.4

MIN · 16/18

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Wild run the Stars 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 5–14

09:32DALJ. Robertsonpower play(M. Heiskanen, W. Johnston)1–0
16:10MINJ. Eriksson Ek(M. Boldy)1–1

2ndshots 4–12

10:19DALM. Heiskanenshorthanded(E. Lindell, R. Faksa)2–1
17:30MINZ. Bogosian(Z. Buium, V. Tarasenko)2–2

3rdshots 9–6

08:40MINM. Johansson(M. Boldy, J. Eriksson Ek)2–3
18:29MINM. Boldyempty net(K. Kaprizov)2–4
19:10MINM. Johanssonempty net(V. Tarasenko, J. Spurgeon)2–5

score reads DAL–MIN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.48

MIN chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.5

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.039

MIN puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

54.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.59Expected goals5.48

MIN 78% of the chance quality

18Shots on goal32

1High-danger chances10

55All attempts (Corsi)66

Adjusted for score: DAL 46% · MIN 54%

Faceoffs · MIN won61%off27%neu56%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL0 / 1 · 0.21 xG

MIN2 / 10 · 3.25 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL0 / 10 · 0.98 xG

MIN2 / 13 · 1.57 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL2 / 44 · 0.41 xG

MIN1 / 43 · 0.65 xG

DAL went 2-for-44 from low danger on 0.41 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

2 G · 1.59 xG · +0.4

MIN

5 G · 5.48 xG · -0.5

0123456

DAL finished +0.4 against expected, MIN -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

WRIST1/17

SNAP0/1

SLAP1/3

BACKHAND0/5

TIP IN0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/26

MIN

WRIST1/16

SNAP2/18

SLAP1/9

BACKHAND1/5

TIP IN0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/15

DAL

MIN

Off the rush

1 G on 19

1.16 xG

2 G on 26

3.24 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.08 xG

1 G on 5

1.32 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 1-for-17, MIN 1-for-16. MIN 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

J. Oettinger

DAL · 27/30 · .900

+2.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/103.3+1.3

Medium2/131.6-0.4

Low1/430.7-0.3

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

F. Gustavsson

MIN · 16/18 · .889

-0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium0/101.0+1.0

Low2/440.4-1.6

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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

29 shots

Final

80 shots

MIN

51 shots

DAL MIN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, MIN 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. Boldy

#12 · L · MIN

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 22:24 on ice · +2

M. Heiskanen

#4 · D · DAL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 26:11 on ice · -1

J. Eriksson Ek

#14 · C · MIN

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 21:34 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:59 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 DAL 2.4–2.5 MIN scoreline with Minnesota at 53% win probability—as close to a coin flip as you'll find in hockey.

The underlying metrics explain the toss-up. Dallas rates at 51.0% xG and 47.0% Corsi, while Minnesota sits at 52.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi. The gap is real but narrow. One driver of uncertainty: Dallas's PDO of 1.024 is running hot. Minnesota's 1.007 suggests the Wild are closer to their true talent level, meaning regression toward the mean cuts against the Stars.

On offense, Dallas leans on Jason Robertson's elite shot volume (0.96 xG/60) paired with elite efficiency—25G 21A on a 12.4% shooting rate, including 2 high-danger goals. Michael Bunting provides secondary punch at 0.83 xG/60 with 8G 14A, though his 7.6% shooting clip leaves room for variance. Minnesota counters with Matt Boldy at 0.89 xG/60, 22G 18A, and 13.7% shooting, plus 5 high-danger goals that signal both volume and timing. Robby Fabbri (0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A, 1 high-danger goal, 6.9% shooting) carries lower production but plays the same dangerous positions.

Defensively, Dallas presents a weak link in Tyler Myers, while Minnesota's Matt Kiersted occupies similar real estate. Neither team has generated high-danger goals or rebound goals at measurable rates—both sit at 0% for the season—which means most offense flows through primary chances. That favors Dallas's volume edge, but Minnesota's superior efficiency edges the scale back.

The 53% Wild win probability reflects this: Minnesota's fundamental advantage in xG and shot efficiency just barely outweighs Dallas's regression headwind and Robertson's ability to create above his xG rate. In a vacuum, Minnesota wins a best-of-seven series. In a single game, the Stars' hot PDO and Robertson's star power present real upside. But that upside is precisely why the model prices Minnesota as a mild favorite—it's already baked the regression in.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 53%

53%

MIN

Model favorite

47%

53%

DAL50MIN

MIN by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.4–2.5 MIN; 19% 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

DAL← edge

edge →MIN

51.0%52.0%

47.0%48.0%

2.362.55

2.292.40

2.072.04

1.681.93

1.0241.007

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.007) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

DAL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

MIN

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.007

MIN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

MIN

Matt Boldy22G 18A

0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Robby Fabbri2G 3A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page