Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
Breakdown · WSH at MIN

Wild shut out the Capitals, 5-0

The verdict · earned

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

WSH 0 · MIN 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:38 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

Washington created the game's best chances and left with nothing. The Capitals generated six high-danger chances at even strength and failed to convert on any of them — a historic performance mismatch that explains a 5-0 scoreline the expected goals never promised.

The underlying numbers said close: Minnesota's 3.43 expected goals against 3.02 for Washington. But raw quality told a different story. The Capitals' six high-danger chances (to Minnesota's four) should have yielded goals. They didn't.

Minnesota was lethal off transition, scoring four goals on 31 rush chances — a clinical execution rate Washington couldn't match. The opening goal came on Matt Boldy's wrist shot from the high slot midway through the first period.

Goaltending explains the gulf. F. Gustavsson (Minnesota) saved exactly 3.02 goals more than his underlying play deserved. C. Lindgren (Washington) gave up 1.57 more than expected, a collapse that amplified Minnesota's efficiency. Together, that goaltending swing wiped away any shot the Capitals had.

V. Tarasenko led the offensive charge with two goals and an assist. D. Yurov added a goal and two assists. Q. Hughes recorded one assist in 29:33 of ice time.

Washington's rush defense failed repeatedly. The Capitals crashed the net effectively early, generating four rebound opportunities that produced nothing — a sign they pushed deep but couldn't finish when it mattered.

This was a 5-0 result built on variance, not dominance. Minnesota overperformed their expected goals by 1.57, while Washington underperformed by 3.02. That's two teams playing in entirely different luck distributions. Washington got none; Minnesota got all of it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 16
WSH
0
MIN
5

Wild shut out the Capitals, 5-0

Chances 3.0 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WSH
3.02
MIN
3.43
47% of the chances53%

The board read WSH 0, MIN 5. The chances read WSH 3.0, MIN 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+1.6
goals above expected
MIN3.43 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
WSH3.02 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild scored 1.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:09MINV. Tarasenko0–1
  2. P2 12:51MINK. KaprizovPP0–2
  3. P3 04:23MINV. Tarasenko0–3
  4. P3 08:53MIND. Yurov0–4
  5. P3 14:12MINM. BoldySH0–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WSH
43 shots
0
Final
90 shots
MIN
47 shots
5
WSH attackMIN attack
WSH MIN Goal
43
shots · 0 in
47
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WSHMIN
0 / 6
1.32 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.96 xG
0 / 10
1.11 xG
Medium
3 / 17
1.79 xG
0 / 50
0.58 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.68 xG

The Capitals went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
F. Gustavsson
+3.0
MIN · 25/25
F
C. Lindgren
−1.6
WSH · 27/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild shut out the Capitals, 5-0

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 11–9
  1. 02:09MINV. Tarasenko(D. Yurov, B. Faber)0–1
2ndshots 9–15
  1. 12:51MINK. Kaprizovpower play(J. Eriksson Ek, Q. Hughes)0–2
3rdshots 5–8
  1. 04:23MINV. Tarasenko(D. Yurov)0–3
  2. 08:53MIND. Yurov(V. Tarasenko)0–4
  3. 14:12MINM. Boldyshorthanded(M. Kiersted)0–5

score reads WSH–MIN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.43
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.086
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.02Expected goals3.43
MIN 53% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal32
6High-danger chances4
66All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: WSH 59% · MIN 41%
Faceoffs · MIN won62%off64%neu36%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WSH0 / 6 · 1.32 xG
MIN1 / 4 · 0.96 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WSH0 / 10 · 1.11 xG
MIN3 / 17 · 1.79 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WSH0 / 50 · 0.58 xG
MIN1 / 37 · 0.68 xG

WSH went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.32 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WSH
0 G · 3.02 xG · -3.0
MIN
5 G · 3.43 xG · +1.6
0123456

WSH finished -3.0 against expected, MIN +1.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WSH
WRIST0/24
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/23
MIN
WRIST4/35
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/3
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
WSH
MIN
Off the rush
0 G on 19
1.79 xG
4 G on 31
2.62 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.72 xG
0 G on 2
0.36 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WSH went 0-for-24, MIN 4-for-35. MIN 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
C. Lindgren
WSH · 27/32 · .844
-1.6
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.0-0.0
Medium3/171.8-1.2
Low1/370.7-0.3

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 · 25/25 · 1.000
+3.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.3+1.3
Medium0/101.1+1.1
Low0/500.6+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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WSH
43 shots
0
Final
90 shots
MIN
47 shots
5
WSH attackMIN attack
WSH MIN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WSH 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
V. Tarasenko
#91 · R · MIN
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 16:01 on ice · +3
D. Yurov
#22 · R · MIN
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:02 on ice · +3
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 29:33 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:37 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 Washington at 2.5-2.7 goals with Minnesota at 54% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as the numbers allow.

At 5v5, the matchup is genuinely even. Minnesota holds a slight xG advantage at 52.0% to 50.0%, while Washington edges the Corsi at 49.0% to 48.0%. The true differentiator sits in variance: Washington's PDO of 1.018 is running hot and due for regression, while Minnesota's 1.007 sits at neutral.

Alex Ovechkin remains Washington's primary threat, carrying 0.97 xG/60 with 19 goals and 17 assists while converting at 13.8%. Matt Boldy is Minnesota's counter—0.89 xG/60, 22 goals, 18 assists, with 5 high-danger conversions against Ovechkin's 2. That gap in finish rate matters more than goal totals. Anthony Beauvillier adds secondary depth for the Capitals at 10.4% shooting (14G-9A), suggesting he's similarly hot. Robby Fabbri, Minnesota's auxiliary scorer at 2G-3A with 6.9% shooting, is likely unavailable.

Washington's primary task is containing Boldy in space—he's Minnesota's most consistent finisher. The Capitals' defensive liability, Declan Chisholm, will face pressure against Minnesota's reliable 5v5 depth. Minnesota's assignment is familiar: keep Ovechkin from generating space, which his 0.97 xG/60 proves he does reliably. Beauvillier's hot shooting becomes the secondary concern.

The model's Minnesota lean is marginal and rooted in process, not outcome. It reflects Washington's outperformance of their metrics offset by Minnesota's superior 5v5 generation. Whoever is more clinical in high-danger areas in the final ten minutes likely wins this. Even money on Washington isn't a mistake.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 54%
54%
MIN
Model favorite
46%
54%
WSH50MIN

MIN by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WSH 2.5–2.7 MIN; 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
WSH← edge
edge →MIN
50.0%52.0%
49.0%48.0%
2.622.55
2.622.40
2.182.04
1.791.93
1.0181.007

WSH holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 1.007) says WSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
WSH
7-1-2
+14 GD · 2d rest
MIN
7-2-1
+8 GD · 2d rest
1.018
WSH 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 Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
WSH
Expected in goal
L. Thompson
2 days rest.857 last start
Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MIN
Expected in goal
F. Gustavsson
2 days rest.935 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% 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