Backcheck
Recap · COL at MIN

Avalanche run the Wild off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 11, 9:23 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
COL
Colorado Avalanche
5
Home
MIN
Minnesota Wild
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

5.78Expected goals3.39
63% share for the better side
42Shot attempts (SOG)29
5High-danger chances5
89Corsi (all attempts)62
Score-adjusted: 54% / 46%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Colorado 5, Minnesota 1—a margin that exceeds the underlying numbers. The Avalanche controlled 63% of expected goals (5.78–3.39), but Minnesota compounded the xG deficit with poor finish: 0 goals on 5 high-danger chances. That conversion gap explains the wider scoreline.

Nathan MacKinnon's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 17:35) exemplified Colorado's precision. They scored four times on 31 rush attempts—converting half-chances into goals where Minnesota couldn't. Blackwood's goaltending widened the gap: 0.966 save percentage, 2.4 goals above expected, and a perfect 5-for-5 stop rate on high-danger chances.

Wallstedt played capably (1.78 goals above expected), but Minnesota's –2.39 underperformance on xG tells the real story: one goal on 3.39 expected is variance that won't repeat. The rebound battle tilted Minnesota's way (seven opportunities created, one converted against Colorado's six, none), but marginal advantages in messy chances can't erase advantages in precision and goaltending.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
COL1 / 5 · 2.35 xG
MIN0 / 5 · 1.07 xG
Medium dangermid-range
COL3 / 21 · 2.45 xG
MIN1 / 14 · 1.39 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
COL1 / 63 · 0.98 xG
MIN0 / 43 · 0.94 xG

COL went 1-for-5 from high danger on 2.35 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
COL
5 G · 5.78 xG · -0.8
MIN
1 G · 3.39 xG · -2.4
01234567
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
M. BlackwoodCOL
+2.4
J. WallstedtMIN
+1.8

COL finished -0.8 against expected, MIN -2.4 — M. Blackwood (COL) saved 2.4 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
COL
WRIST1/34
SNAP2/10
TIP IN0/6
SLAP2/9
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/27
MIN
WRIST1/27
SNAP0/8
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/2
POKE0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/12
COL
MIN
Off the rush
4 G on 31 · 2.83 xG
0 G on 29 · 1.90 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6 · 1.47 xG
1 G on 7 · 1.04 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 1-for-34, MIN 1-for-27. COL scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
1 G · 2 A · 7 SOG · 23:25 TOI · +2
B. Nelson
#11 · C · COL
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:57 TOI · +1
N. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 22:33 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • M. Blackwood (COL) stopped 2.4 goals above expected.
  • MIN couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • COL was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 31 rush chances.
  • MIN created 7 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • COL created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • MIN underperformed xG by 2.4 — wasted quality chances.
  • M. Blackwood (COL) saved 2.4 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • M. Blackwood was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
  • J. Wallstedt (MIN) saved 1.8 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · COL at MIN · 6:00 PM ET

Avalanche at Wild: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 9:20 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
COL
Model favorite
53%
47%
COL50MIN

COL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score COL 2.72.5 MIN; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

COL← edge
edge →MIN
57.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
57.0%Corsi%48.0%
3.03xGF / 602.55
2.30xGA / 602.40
2.63Goals for / gm2.04
1.56Goals against / gm1.93
1.021PDO — luck, not skill1.007

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.021 vs 1.007) says COL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model sees a coin flip: Avalanche 53% to win, 2.7 goals against 2.5. This is as close to pick'em as projections get.

Colorado owns the underlying play. At 57.0% xG and 57.0% Corsi, they control territory and generate chances. Minnesota's 52.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi means they're following, not leading.

But Colorado's PDO is 1.021 — they're running hot. Minnesota's 1.007 is closer to neutral. When Colorado regresses (and it will), their edge compresses.

Goaltending uncertainty tilts the ledger. Both F. Gustavsson and S. Wedgewood face back-to-backs. Backup usage or tired starters are both possible, and both matter more in close games.

Artturi Lehkonen (1.11 xG/60, 18G 22A, 6 hard-chance goals, 14.9% shooting) is Colorado's primary threat. Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7G 15A, 1 hard-chance goal, 4.9% shooting) adds volume but not efficiency. For Minnesota, Matt Boldy (0.89 xG/60, 22G 18A, 5 hard-chance goals, 13.7% shooting) is a genuine shot-maker. Robby Fabbri (0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A, 1 hard-chance goal, 6.9% shooting) is likely out.

The defensive weak points matter. Nazem Kadri (Colorado) and Matt Kiersted (Minnesota) are the respective liabilities. In a game this tight, vulnerabilities become destiny.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters