Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
Breakdown · NSH at COL

Avalanche run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

NSH 2 · COL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:21 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's 4-2 win understates how thoroughly they controlled this game. The Avalanche dominated expected goals 65-35 (5.75–3.08) and held 59% of shot attempts (41–29 on goal), but they left 1.75 goals on the ice—a significant underperformance of their actual chances.

Colorado's shot quality was the real difference. They generated 0.074 xG per shot versus Nashville's 0.050, proving they attacked with precision rather than volume. That efficiency showed in high-danger chances: Colorado 9, Nashville 4.

Nashville's story was its goaltending. J. Annunen made 37 of 40 saves and outperformed his expected save rate by 2.75 goals, keeping the Predators competitive when they had no business being close. Without his performance, the scoreline would've looked far worse.

Colorado's rush game was ruthless—four goals on 36 rush chances—while Nashville managed only two goals on 27 rush chances. The turning point arrived when Tyson Jost ripped a wrist shot from the slot at 18:57 of the third period.

Colorado created four rebound opportunities but converted none, suggesting they didn't fully capitalize on their offensive pressure. Yet they scored two goals from low-danger spots, proving they could find the back of the net even when the setup wasn't pristine.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 13
NSH
2
COL
4

Avalanche run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.1 – 5.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
3.08
COL
5.75
35% of the chances65%

The board read NSH 2, COL 4. The chances read NSH 3.1, COL 5.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
−1.8
goals above expected
COL5.75 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH3.08 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
  1. P1 01:26COLN. MacKinnon0–1
  2. P1 11:47COLJ. Drury0–2
  3. P1 12:37NSHJ. MarchessaultPP1–2
  4. P2 09:57COLV. OlofssonPP1–3
  5. P3 16:26COLV. NichushkinEN1–4
  6. P3 18:57NSHT. Jost2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
44 shots
2
Final
100 shots
COL
56 shots
4
NSH attackCOL attack
NSH COL Goal
44
shots · 2 in
56
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHCOL
1 / 4
0.90 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.75 xG
1 / 14
1.54 xG
Medium
1 / 22
2.48 xG
0 / 44
0.64 xG
Low
2 / 47
0.53 xG

High-danger looks: NSH 1 of 4, COL 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Annunen
+2.8
NSH · 37/40
B+
S. Wedgewood
+1.1
COL · 27/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Predators 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 8–11
  1. 01:26COLN. MacKinnon(B. Burns)0–1
  2. 11:47COLJ. Drury(C. Makar, S. Girard)0–2
  3. 12:37NSHJ. Marchessaultpower play(R. O'Reilly, F. Forsberg)1–2
2ndshots 13–15
  1. 09:57COLV. Olofssonpower play(S. Girard, S. Malinski)1–3
3rdshots 8–15
  1. 16:26COLV. Nichushkinempty net(N. MacKinnon)1–4
  2. 18:57NSHT. Jost(F. Svechkov)2–4

score reads NSH–COL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.75
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.019
COL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
55.7%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.08Expected goals5.75
COL 65% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal41
4High-danger chances9
62All attempts (Corsi)78
Adjusted for score: NSH 50% · COL 50%
Faceoffs · COL won45%off67%neu54%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NSH1 / 4 · 0.90 xG
COL1 / 9 · 2.75 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NSH1 / 14 · 1.54 xG
COL1 / 22 · 2.48 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NSH0 / 44 · 0.64 xG
COL2 / 47 · 0.53 xG

COL went 1-for-9 from high danger on 2.75 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NSH
2 G · 3.08 xG · -1.1
COL
4 G · 5.75 xG · -1.8
01234567

NSH finished -1.1 against expected, COL -1.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NSH
WRIST2/30
SLAP0/9
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/18
COL
WRIST3/35
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND1/6
SNAP0/5
POKE0/0
OTHER0/22
NSH
COL
Off the rush
2 G on 27
2.39 xG
4 G on 36
4.26 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.26 xG
0 G on 4
0.59 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 2-for-30, COL 3-for-35. COL 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. Annunen
NSH · 37/40 · .925
+2.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/92.8+1.8
Medium1/222.5+1.5
Low2/470.5-1.5

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

S. Wedgewood
COL · 27/29 · .931
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low0/440.6+0.6

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

100 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NSH
44 shots
2
Final
100 shots
COL
56 shots
4
NSH attackCOL attack
NSH COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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 · 3 SOG · 23:29 on ice · +3
S. Girard
#49 · D · COL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:48 on ice · +1
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:08 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 13
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:45 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 favors Colorado by 59 percent win probability, projecting a 2.4–3.0 scoreline in the Avalanche's favor. Form backs the lean: Colorado is 7-1-2 in its last 10, giving the model clear preference in an otherwise close matchup.

The gap lies in underlying play. Colorado drives 57.0 percent 5v5 xG compared to Nashville's 49.0 percent—a two-step territorial advantage that translates to shot volume. Corsi reinforces it at 57.0 percent for Colorado and 50.0 percent for Nashville, confirming the Avalanche will dictate pace and space throughout.

But Colorado's expected growth has already materialized in real results. The Avalanche's 1.021 PDO signals they're converting at an unsustainable rate; regression undercuts the 59 percent projection. Nashville's 0.992 PDO runs slightly lucky in reverse, leaving room for closer outcomes than Vegas is pricing.

M. Blackwood and J. Saros are both on back-to-backs. Watch for backups to start or starters to wilt from fatigue.

Colorado leans on Artturi Lehkonen (1.11 xG/60, 18 goals, 6 high-danger chances) and Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7 goals). Nashville counters with Zachary L'Heureux (0.85 xG/60, 4 goals at a 16.0 percent shooting rate) and Filip Forsberg (0.80 xG/60, 23 goals, 4 high-danger chances at 13.6 percent shooting). Forsberg's shooting rate is the outlier; regression may dull his edge.

Nashville's defensive weak link is Jonathan Marchessault. Colorado's is Nazem Kadri. In a game where underlying metrics heavily favor the Avalanche, those small imbalances may define the margins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 59%
59%
COL
Model favorite
41%
59%
NSH50COL

COL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score NSH 2.4–3.0 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
NSH← edge
edge →COL
49.0%57.0%
50.0%57.0%
2.483.03
2.582.30
1.842.63
2.211.56
0.9921.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NSH
6-4-0
+1 GD · 1d rest
COL
7-1-2
+15 GD · 1d rest
0.992
NSH 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.
  • M. Blackwood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Saros is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Avalanche are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NSH
Expected in goal
J. Saros
back-to-back.923 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

COL
Expected in goal
M. Blackwood
back-to-back.920 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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