Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Mon, Dec 15 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at WPG

Senators edge the Jets in overtime

Final / OTMon, Dec 15
OTTOttawa Senators3WPGWinnipeg Jets2
The verdict · coin flip

The Senators won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

OTT 3 · WPG 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:30 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 won 3-2 in overtime despite trading prime opportunities evenly with Winnipeg. Both teams squandered their high-danger chances (0/6 apiece), making the difference elsewhere: the Senators capitalized on low-danger looks and rush chances where the Jets could not.

The Senators outshot Winnipeg 31–25 and held a slight edge in expected goals (4.25–4.13). The Jets' profligacy was striking: they underperformed their expected goals by 2.13—a sign they generated quality chances but could not finish. The Senators underperformed too, by 1.25 goals, but less so. When both teams fail to convert prime opportunities, a one-goal edge in shot volume and efficiency compounds quickly.

L. Ullmark stopped 23 of 25 shots, overperforming his expected goals against by 2.13. C. Hellebuyck made 28 of 31 saves, overperforming by 1.25. Neither goalie was the story; execution was.

The Senators' advantage came from the rush and the soft areas. They scored 2 goals from low-danger spots—spots Hellebuyck should have had—and converted 2 of 35 rush chances. Winnipeg also scored 2 from low-danger spots and created 5 rebound opportunities but converted none. Brady Tkachuk's slap shot from the high slot at 02:11 of overtime finished it.

T. Stützle led with three assists over 23:46. J. Sanderson posted a goal and an assist in 29:14. N. Pionk contributed a goal for Winnipeg in 24:42.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 15
OTT
3
WPG
2

Senators edge the Jets in overtime

Chances 4.3 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Senators took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
4.25
WPG
4.13
51% of the chances49%

The board read OTT 3, WPG 2. The chances read OTT 4.3, WPG 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−1.3
goals above expected
OTT4.25 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG4.13 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 2.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 10:47OTTN. Cousins1–0
  2. P2 15:37WPGN. Pionk1–1
  3. P2 18:35WPGL. Stanley1–2
  4. P3 18:06OTTJ. SandersonPP2–2
  5. OT 02:11OTTB. Tkachuk3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
44 shots
3
Final
88 shots
WPG
44 shots
2
OTT attackWPG attack
OTT WPG Goal
44
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTWPG
0 / 6
1.50 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.45 xG
1 / 15
1.97 xG
Medium
0 / 17
2.08 xG
2 / 39
0.77 xG
Low
2 / 38
0.60 xG

The Jets went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
L. Ullmark
+2.1
OTT · 23/25
B+
C. Hellebuyck
+1.3
WPG · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators edge the Jets in overtime

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 7–7no goals
    2ndshots 12–10
    1. 10:47OTTN. Cousins(K. MacDermid, T. Stützle)1–0
    2. 15:37WPGN. Pionk(K. Connor, C. Perfetti)1–1
    3. 18:35WPGL. Stanley(M. Barron, G. Vilardi)1–2
    3rdshots 8–7
    1. 18:06OTTJ. Sandersonpower play(T. Stützle)2–2
    OTshots 4–1
    1. 02:11OTTB. Tkachuk(T. Stützle, J. Sanderson)3–2

    score reads OTT–WPG

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.25
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.017
    OTT puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    49.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.25Expected goals4.13
    OTT 51% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal25
    6High-danger chances6
    60All attempts (Corsi)61
    Adjusted for score: OTT 50% · WPG 50%
    Faceoffs · WPG won70%off50%neu36%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT0 / 6 · 1.50 xG
    WPG0 / 6 · 1.45 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT1 / 15 · 1.97 xG
    WPG0 / 17 · 2.08 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT2 / 39 · 0.77 xG
    WPG2 / 38 · 0.60 xG

    WPG went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 2.08 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    3 G · 4.25 xG · -1.3
    WPG
    2 G · 4.13 xG · -2.1
    012345

    OTT finished -1.3 against expected, WPG -2.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    WRIST2/23
    SNAP0/5
    SLAP1/4
    TIP IN0/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BAT0/1
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/16
    WPG
    WRIST1/19
    SNAP0/7
    SLAP1/7
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    BAT0/0
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/17
    OTT
    WPG
    Off the rush
    2 G on 35
    3.41 xG
    1 G on 27
    2.61 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.59 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.88 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 2-for-23, WPG 1-for-19. OTT 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
    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 23/25 · .920
    +2.1
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.4+1.4
    Medium0/172.1+2.1
    Low2/380.6-1.4

    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

    C. Hellebuyck
    WPG · 28/31 · .903
    +1.3
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.5+1.5
    Medium1/152.0+1.0
    Low2/390.8-1.2

    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

    88 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    44 shots
    3
    Final
    88 shots
    WPG
    44 shots
    2
    OTT attackWPG attack
    OTT WPG Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, WPG 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
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    0 G · 3 A · 6 SOG · 23:46 on ice · +3
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 29:14 on ice · +1
    N. Pionk
    #4 · D · WPG
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 24:42 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Dec 15
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:28 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 2.6-2.3 Senators advantage, but that 55% win probability is as close to a pick'em as sports analytics gets.

    Ottawa dominates the underlying play. The Senators are outshooting Winnipeg 56.0% to 48.0% in expected goals and pressing for territorial control at 53.0% Corsi—they're winning the possession battle decisively. Yet both teams are bleeding goals in their recent windows: Ottawa is -5 over the last 10 games, while Winnipeg is -8. That suggests the Senators' play isn't translating to results, at least not consistently.

    The goaltending picture clouds things further. C. Hellebuyck is playing on a back-to-back, meaning either a backup takes the crease or he goes tired—both scenarios favor Ottawa's generating volume.

    Brady Tkachuk is the engine for Ottawa's advantage. He's averaging 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals and 2 high-danger chances, posting a 7.5% shooting rate that suggests room for regression or overperformance depending on which way the variance breaks. Dylan Cozens compounds the issue for Winnipeg: he's at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals and a 9.5% shooting rate, meaning his finishing is outpacing his opportunity creation.

    Winnipeg's counters are more isolated. Kyle Connor (25 goals, 30 assists) is the team's engine, but his 0.83 xG/60 reflects a secondary role in chance generation; Nino Niederreiter is actually creating more at 0.87 xG/60, though he has only 6 goals and 6 assists to show for it. Niederreiter's 3 high-danger chances hint that he's one run away from lifting Winnipeg's scoring, but he hasn't found it yet.

    The defensive matchups offer little comfort for either side. Nick Jensen is a known weak point for Ottawa, while Colin Miller shoulders the same burden in Winnipeg. Both goaltenders face teams that aren't generating rebound opportunities (each team at 0% rebound-goal rate on the season), which paradoxically means puck luck and first-shot decisions matter even more.

    The underlying data points to Ottawa, but recent results point nowhere. That's exactly why this reads as a genuine flip.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 55%
    55%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    55%
    45%
    OTT50WPG

    OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.3 WPG; 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
    OTT← edge
    edge →WPG
    56.0%48.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.662.34
    2.122.55
    2.181.90
    1.992.10
    0.9930.998

    OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    OTT
    3-7-0
    -5 GD · 2d rest
    WPG
    3-6-1
    -8 GD · 1d rest
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    WPG 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 48.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Jets are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Senators are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Meriläinen
    2 days rest.880 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    WPG
    Expected in goal
    C. Hellebuyck
    back-to-back.960 last start
    Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page