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

Avalanche run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 2 · COL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:02 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 Avalanche edged the Jets 3–2, but the underlying numbers would have predicted a wider margin: Colorado controlled 67% of 5v5 expected goals (4.14–2.06), a gap that should have yielded a two-goal win instead of one. Colorado underperformed its xG by 1.14 goals, narrowing what the underlying picture suggested.

That dominance came through shot quality, not volume. Colorado held 54% of shot attempts but generated far superior chances—0.071 expected goals per attempt versus Winnipeg's 0.043. The high-danger chance count reflected the gap: 7–5 in Colorado's favor.

Winnipeg's clinical efficiency made the loss sting. The Jets converted 2 of 5 high-danger chances—40% in the danger zone. That conversion rate masked a deeper problem: Winnipeg generated inferior scoring chances across the board and still fell short.

Mark Scheifele's snap shot from the doorstep (third period, 3:38) briefly suggested a Winnipeg comeback. By the underlying metrics, Colorado's dominance was never seriously in doubt.

Goaltending. S. Wedgewood (COL): 20/22 saves, 0.909 SV%. C. Hellebuyck (WPG): 23/26 saves, 0.885 SV% (+1.14 vs expected).

Three Stars. 1) #42 J. Manson (COL) — 2A in 15:35. 2) #29 N. MacKinnon (COL) — 1A in 24:21. 3) #55 M. Scheifele (WPG) — 1G in 23:19.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 19
WPG
2
COL
3

Avalanche run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
2.06
COL
4.14
33% of the chances67%

The board read WPG 2, COL 3. The chances read WPG 2.1, COL 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
−1.1
goals above expected
COL4.14 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG2.06 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 09:45COLB. Burns0–1
  2. P1 15:05COLM. Necas0–2
  3. P2 19:22WPGM. BarronSH1–2
  4. P3 01:58COLP. Kelly1–3
  5. P3 03:38WPGM. ScheifelePP2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
33 shots
2
Final
76 shots
COL
43 shots
3
WPG attackCOL attack
WPG COL Goal
33
shots · 2 in
43
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGCOL
2 / 5
1.32 xG
High danger
1 / 7
2.11 xG
0 / 2
0.21 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.53 xG
0 / 41
0.53 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.50 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 2 of 5, COL 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
C. Hellebuyck
+1.1
WPG · 23/26
C
S. Wedgewood
+0.1
COL · 20/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Jets 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. 09:45COLB. Burns(J. Manson, J. Kiviranta)0–1
  2. 15:05COLM. Necas(N. MacKinnon, A. Lehkonen)0–2
2ndshots 7–11
  1. 19:22WPGM. Barronshorthanded(A. Iafallo)1–2
3rdshots 7–4
  1. 01:58COLP. Kelly(J. Manson, V. Nichushkin)1–3
  2. 03:38WPGM. Scheifelepower play(G. Nyquist)2–3

score reads WPG–COL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.14
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.010
COL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
54.7%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.06Expected goals4.14
COL 67% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal26
5High-danger chances7
48All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: WPG 51% · COL 50%
Faceoffs · COL won43%off47%neu54%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG2 / 5 · 1.32 xG
COL1 / 7 · 2.11 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG0 / 2 · 0.21 xG
COL1 / 14 · 1.53 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 41 · 0.53 xG
COL1 / 37 · 0.50 xG

COL went 1-for-7 from high danger on 2.11 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
2 G · 2.06 xG · -0.1
COL
3 G · 4.14 xG · -1.1
012345

WPG finished -0.1 against expected, COL -1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
WRIST0/21
SNAP1/5
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/15
COL
WRIST2/12
SNAP1/19
SLAP0/8
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/15
WPG
COL
Off the rush
2 G on 18
1.41 xG
2 G on 29
2.91 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.44 xG
0 G on 2
0.37 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-21, COL 2-for-12. WPG 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
C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 23/26 · .885
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/72.1+1.1
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low1/370.5-0.5

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

S. Wedgewood
COL · 20/22 · .909
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.3-0.7
Medium0/20.2+0.2
Low0/410.5+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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
33 shots
2
Final
76 shots
COL
43 shots
3
WPG attackCOL attack
WPG COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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
J. Manson
#42 · D · COL
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 15:35 on ice · +3
N. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:21 on ice
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 23:19 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Dec 19
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:00 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 Avalanche are favored. The model projects Winnipeg 2.3, Colorado 2.9, with the Avalanche at 60% win probability—a lean rooted in one immovable fact: Colorado owns the possession battle decisively.

Start with form. The Avalanche have gone 7-1-2 in their last 10, a pace that separates genuine heat from noise. The Jets sit at -5 in goal differential over the same span, a ditch that doesn't fix itself.

The season 5v5 numbers explain why. Colorado is controlling play at 57.0% xG versus Winnipeg's 48.0%—a nine-percentage-point gap that isn't marginal. Corsi paints the same picture: Avalanche at 57.0%, Jets at 49.0%. This means Colorado dictates territory and shot volume. Winnipeg spends the night chasing.

Here's the complication: Colorado is also running hot. The Avalanche's PDO sits at 1.021, meaning they're outscoring their process—their shooting and save rates are both elevated. Winnipeg's PDO is 0.998, closer to neutral. Some regression is likely for Colorado; they've been lucky to the tune of about two percentage points. In a 2.3 to 2.9 goal game, that matters.

The goaltending angle is worth flagging. C. Hellebuyck plays on a back-to-back, which may mean a lighter workload or a backup start, though his usage will signal Winnipeg's confidence in the matchup.

The offensive edge belongs to Colorado. Artturi Lehkonen is the engine—1.11 xG per 60, 18 goals and 22 assists with six high-danger goals. Ross Colton runs similarly efficient at 1.10 xG per 60, though with thinner volume at seven goals on 15 assists. For Winnipeg, Nino Niederreiter's 0.87 xG per 60 and three high-danger goals still represent quality volume—six goals and six assists. Kyle Connor is the name, though: 25 goals on 13.0% shooting with 30 assists and only two high-danger goals. Connor is converting more efficiently than his underlying play suggests.

The tactical mismatch is straightforward. Colorado's territorial dominance should create space for Lehkonen and Colton, both high-event players. Winnipeg's best path is executing in transition where chance quality tilts in their favor—specifically through Niederreiter and Connor—but generating those looks requires puck recovery. Recovery is hardest when you're being outplayed. Colin Miller becomes a liability in extended defensive sequences.

The Jets are capable enough that they won't be shut out, but Colorado's process advantage is too large to overcome. Back Colorado.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 60%
60%
COL
Model favorite
40%
60%
WPG50COL

COL by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score WPG 2.3–2.9 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
WPG← edge
edge →COL
48.0%57.0%
49.0%57.0%
2.343.03
2.552.30
1.902.63
2.101.56
0.9981.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 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
WPG
3-5-2
-5 GD · 1d rest
COL
7-1-2
+12 GD · 2d rest
0.998
WPG 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 48.0%.
  • 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 48.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • C. Hellebuyck 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 Jets are underwater at -5 goal differential over 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
WPG
Expected in goal
C. Hellebuyck
back-to-back.962 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.

COL
Expected in goal
M. Blackwood
2 days rest.921 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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
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
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