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

M. Blackwood stands tall as the Avalanche edge the Kraken

The verdict · stolen

The Avalanche stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.85–6.09 and won anyway.

COL 5 · SEA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:47 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 Kraken dominated the expected-goal battle (56% at 5-on-5, 6.09–4.85) and still lost 5-3. That gap between dominance and defeat lives almost entirely with M. Blackwood, who saved 3.09 goals above expected.

Colorado won this through two mechanisms: superior finishing in the high-danger area and a goaltender who refused to let volume matter. The Kraken generated 15 high-danger chances to Colorado's 5—a 3-to-1 advantage in the most dangerous shots. They held 49% of shot attempts with 38–39 on goal, yet still lost. They also generated more dangerous chances per shot (0.083 xG/shot versus Colorado's 0.057). By every measure of offensive volume, the Kraken built a fortress. None of it mattered.

M. Blackwood (35/38 saves, 0.921 SV%) turned away the difference. P. Grubauer, by contrast, was merely above-average (+0.85 vs expected), allowing Colorado's low-danger inefficiency to become actual goals.

Colorado executed ruthlessly in the spots that matter most: they converted 2 of 5 high-danger chances (40%) and scored 3 goals from low-danger positions—the kind that shouldn't survive competent goaltending, yet did. They also found two goals on the rush from 34 chances. Efficiency in transition and the red zone masked their underlying weakness.

The turning point came from N. MacKinnon's backhander from the top of the circles at 19:36. MacKinnon finished with 2 goals and an assist over 23:30. C. Makar added 2 assists in 22:48, and M. Necas contributed 2 assists in 21:16.

The Kraken's loss wasn't about a lack of chances. They underperformed their xG by 3.09 goals—wasted volume. For Seattle, that's the closer that stings most.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 16
COL
5
SEA
3

M. Blackwood stands tall as the Avalanche edge the Kraken

Chances 4.8 – 6.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kraken deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
4.85
SEA
6.09
44% of the chances56%

The board read COL 5, SEA 3. The chances read COL 4.8, SEA 6.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
+0.1
goals above expected
COL4.85 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA6.09 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kraken left 3.1 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. P1 12:19COLA. Lehkonen1–0
  2. P2 03:03SEAS. Wright1–1
  3. P2 05:48SEAJ. Eberle1–2
  4. P2 13:29COLS. Girard2–2
  5. P2 19:24SEAC. StephensonPP2–3
  6. P3 02:40COLN. MacKinnon3–3
  7. P3 08:25COLB. NelsonPP4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
58 shots
5
Final
113 shots
SEA
55 shots
3
COL attackSEA attack
COL SEA Goal
58
shots · 5 in
55
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLSEA
2 / 5
1.37 xG
High danger
2 / 15
3.83 xG
0 / 22
2.57 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.66 xG
3 / 58
0.91 xG
Low
1 / 45
0.60 xG

The Avalanche buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
M. Blackwood
+3.1
COL · 35/38
B+
P. Grubauer
+0.8
SEA · 34/38
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

M. Blackwood stands tall as the Avalanche edge the Kraken

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. 12:19COLA. Lehkonen(M. Necas, J. Manson)1–0
2ndshots 15–13
  1. 03:03SEAS. Wright(J. Nyman, K. Kakko)1–1
  2. 05:48SEAJ. Eberle(A. Larsson, M. Beniers)1–2
  3. 13:29COLS. Girard(V. Nichushkin, B. Burns)2–2
  4. 19:24SEAC. Stephensonpower play(E. Tolvanen, V. Dunn)2–3
3rdshots 16–14
  1. 02:40COLN. MacKinnon(C. Makar, M. Necas)3–3
  2. 08:25COLB. Nelsonpower play(N. MacKinnon, C. Makar)4–3
  3. 19:36COLN. MacKinnonempty net(V. Nichushkin, G. Landeskog)5–3

score reads COL–SEA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.85
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.018
COL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
53.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.85Expected goals6.09
SEA 56% of the chance quality
39Shots on goal38
5High-danger chances15
85All attempts (Corsi)73
Adjusted for score: COL 53% · SEA 47%
Faceoffs · SEA won57%off35%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
COL2 / 5 · 1.37 xG
SEA2 / 15 · 3.83 xG
Medium dangermid-range
COL0 / 22 · 2.57 xG
SEA0 / 13 · 1.66 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
COL3 / 58 · 0.91 xG
SEA1 / 45 · 0.60 xG

COL went 0-for-22 from medium danger on 2.57 expected goals — 2.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
COL
5 G · 4.85 xG · +0.1
SEA
3 G · 6.09 xG · -3.1
01234567

COL finished +0.1 against expected, SEA -3.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
COL
WRIST0/25
BACKHAND1/9
SNAP1/6
TIP IN0/6
SLAP2/8
DEFLECTED1/2
BAT0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/27
SEA
WRIST2/31
BACKHAND1/5
SNAP0/7
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/18
COL
SEA
Off the rush
2 G on 34
2.32 xG
1 G on 29
2.75 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 9
1.28 xG
2 G on 10
2.60 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 0-for-25, SEA 2-for-31. COL 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
M. Blackwood
COL · 35/38 · .921
+3.1
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/153.8+1.8
Medium0/131.7+1.7
Low1/450.6-0.4

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

P. Grubauer
SEA · 34/38 · .895
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.4-0.6
Medium0/222.6+2.6
Low3/580.9-2.1

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

113 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
COL
58 shots
5
Final
113 shots
SEA
55 shots
3
COL attackSEA attack
COL SEA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL left, SEA 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
2 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 23:30 on ice · +3
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:48 on ice · +1
M. Necas
#88 · C · COL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:16 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, 8:38 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 an Avalanche victory at 57% probability — a 2.8-2.3 scoreline. Colorado owns the underlying metrics: 57.0% expected goals versus Seattle's 46.0%, and 57.0% Corsi versus 45.0%. These reflect dominance in zone presence and shot quality. But the Avalanche are running hot on PDO (1.021, versus Seattle's 1.011), and regression is coming.

Artturi Lehkonen is the engine. His 1.11 xG per 60 minutes drives Colorado's edge; at 18 goals and 22 assists with 6 high-danger chances and a 14.9% shooting rate, he's both efficient and volume-oriented. Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7 goals, 15 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 4.9% shooting) supplies secondary scoring.

Seattle counters with Shane Wright (0.77 xG/60, 8 goals, 10 assists, 4 high-danger goals, 10.4% shooting) and Berkly Catton (0.68 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists, 5 high-danger goals, 8.8% shooting). Both operate below Lehkonen's offensive profile.

Both teams sit at 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound goal rates—an unusual symmetry suggesting neither is cashing in on second-chance opportunities. Colorado's defensive weak point is Nazem Kadri; Seattle's is Chandler Stephenson. The model likes the Avalanche's edge in underlying play, but that PDO is the catch. Seattle doesn't need to dominate—variance will do.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 57%
57%
COL
Model favorite
57%
43%
COL50SEA

COL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score COL 2.8–2.3 SEA; 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
COL← edge
edge →SEA
57.0%46.0%
57.0%45.0%
3.032.13
2.302.51
2.631.87
1.561.95
1.0211.011

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 1.011) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
COL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
SEA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.011
SEA 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 46.0%.
  • 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 46.0%.
  • 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
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
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next