Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater

Breakdown · FLA at COL

Avalanche run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Dec 11

FLAFlorida Panthers2 COLColorado Avalanche6

The verdict · earned

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

FLA 2 · COL 6

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:05 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

Colorado ran the scoreboard up beyond what the underlying metrics prescribed—a 6-2 victory that inflated their 65% expected-goals edge. The overperformance (1.41 goals above xG) made the 4.59–2.43 expected-goal gap look like a rout. Yet the underlying indicators confirmed dominance: 63% of shot attempts (42–25) and high-danger chances 5–4.

Shot quality was the real separator. Colorado generated 0.064 xG per shot; Florida managed 0.046. The Avalanche converted 3 goals on 30 rush chances while Florida got 2 on 19. Precision mattered as much as volume.

Goaltending told a complementary story. D. Tarasov faced 42 shots, saved 36, and posted a 0.857 SV% that cost Florida 1.41 goals versus expectation. M. Blackwood (23/25, 0.920 SV%) performed to his workload. The gap in execution compounded across the night.

Colorado's rebound game showed their net-front intensity. They generated 8 rebound opportunities and converted 2. Florida created 3 and converted none—leaving second chances untaken.

One turning point: Mackie Samoskevich's snap shot from the doorstep at 13:08 of the third period separated what had tightened as the game went.

Three Stars

#29 N. MacKinnon (COL)—1G, 1A in 19:34
#70 S. Malinski (COL)—1G, 1A in 17:53
#88 M. Necas (COL)—2A in 17:14

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 11

FLA

COL

Avalanche run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.4 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

2.43

COL

4.59

35% of the chances65%

The board read FLA 2, COL 6. The chances read FLA 2.4, COL 4.6.

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

Luck check

COL

+1.4

goals above expected

COL4.59 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA2.43 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 01:14COLS. Malinski0–1
P1 07:21FLAN. Gregor1–1
P1 18:30COLB. Nelson1–2
P2 05:05COLG. Brindley1–3
P2 07:18COLN. MacKinnon1–4
P2 12:31COLA. Lehkonen1–5
P3 06:18COLG. Landeskog1–6

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

34 shots

Final

91 shots

COL

57 shots

FLA COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLACOL

1 / 4

0.90 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.55 xG

1 / 10

1.08 xG

Medium

3 / 22

2.41 xG

0 / 39

0.45 xG

Low

2 / 45

0.64 xG

High-danger looks: FLA 1 of 4, COL 1 of 5.

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

In the net

M. Blackwood

+0.4

COL · 23/25

D-

D. Tarasov

−1.4

FLA · 36/42

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Panthers 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 12–20

01:14COLS. Malinski(M. Necas, N. MacKinnon)0–1
07:21FLAN. Gregor(S. Jones)1–1
18:30COLB. Nelson(C. Makar, V. Nichushkin)1–2

2ndshots 8–14

05:05COLG. Brindley(B. Burns, J. Manson)1–3
07:18COLN. MacKinnon(S. Girard, S. Malinski)1–4
12:31COLA. Lehkonen(G. Brindley, D. Toews)1–5

3rdshots 5–8

06:18COLG. Landeskog(M. Necas, J. Manson)1–6
13:08FLAM. Samoskevich(A. Greer, E. Rodrigues)2–6

score reads FLA–COL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.59

COL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.046

COL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

57.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.43Expected goals4.59

COL 65% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal42

4High-danger chances5

53All attempts (Corsi)72

Adjusted for score: FLA 47% · COL 53%

Faceoffs · COL won72%off67%neu71%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA1 / 4 · 0.90 xG

COL1 / 5 · 1.55 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA1 / 10 · 1.08 xG

COL3 / 22 · 2.41 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA0 / 39 · 0.45 xG

COL2 / 45 · 0.64 xG

COL went 2-for-45 from low danger on 0.64 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

2 G · 2.43 xG · -0.4

COL

6 G · 4.59 xG · +1.4

01234567

FLA finished -0.4 against expected, COL +1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST1/19

BACKHAND0/4

SNAP1/3

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT0/1

OTHER0/19

COL

WRIST4/35

BACKHAND2/5

SNAP0/6

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/5

DEFLECTED0/2

BAT0/0

OTHER0/15

FLA

COL

Off the rush

2 G on 19

1.77 xG

3 G on 30

3.28 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.45 xG

2 G on 8

0.91 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 1-for-19, COL 4-for-35. COL scored 3 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

D. Tarasov

FLA · 36/42 · .857

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.6+0.6

Medium3/222.4-0.6

Low2/450.6-1.4

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

M. Blackwood

COL · 23/25 · .920

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium1/101.1+0.1

Low0/390.5+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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

34 shots

Final

91 shots

COL

57 shots

FLA COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, COL 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

N. MacKinnon

#29 · C · COL

1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 19:34 on ice · +2

S. Malinski

#70 · D · COL

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:53 on ice · +2

M. Necas

#88 · C · COL

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:14 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, 8:03 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

Colorado is the clear favorite. The model projects a 2.4-2.9 goal game with the Avalanche at 59% win probability.

The Avalanche dominate the underlying play. At 5v5, they generate a 57.0% expected goals share against Florida's 49.0%—an eight-point gap that indicates consistent superiority in chance creation. They also drive Corsi at 57.0%, meaning the play consistently tilts toward Colorado's end.

Here's the catch: Colorado's PDO is 1.021. That's a hot-running efficiency metric, and regression is the expectation. Florida sits at 0.989, which historically suggests mean reversion favors the Panthers. If Colorado's conversion rates normalize to their underlying quality, the model's advantage shrinks considerably.

Players to Watch

Florida:

Sam Bennett: 0.97 xG/60, 18G 19A, 6 high-danger goals, 13.1% shooting
Brad Marchand: 0.93 xG/60, 17G 9A, 3 high-danger goals, 19.5% shooting

Colorado:

Artturi Lehkonen: 1.11 xG/60, 18G 22A, 6 high-danger goals, 14.9% shooting
Ross Colton: 1.10 xG/60, 7G 15A, 1 high-danger goal, 4.9% shooting

Bennett and Marchand carry Florida's offensive load, while Lehkonen anchors Colorado's attack at 1.11 xG/60. The Avalanche's territorial dominance should translate to wins, but if Florida's skill players hold their efficiency while Colorado's regresses, the margin compresses.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 59%

59%

COL

Model favorite

41%

59%

FLA50COL

COL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score FLA 2.4–2.9 COL; 17% 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

FLA← edge

edge →COL

49.0%57.0%

52.0%57.0%

2.483.03

2.562.30

1.982.63

2.211.56

0.9891.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

FLA

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

COL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page