Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · DAL at DET

Red Wings edge the Stars in overtime

Final / OTTue, Dec 23

The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.76–3.01 and won anyway.

DAL 3 · DET 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:36 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

Detroit won 4-3 despite trailing 3.01–3.76 in expected goals—a 56–44 advantage Dallas couldn't convert. Gibson's goaltending and Detroit's finishing both outperformed the metrics.

Dallas created 7 high-danger chances to Detroit's 5. C. DeSmith finished at 0.840 SV% (–0.99 vs expected), while J. Gibson posted 0.864 (+0.76). Gibson's outperformance erased Dallas's underlying edge in a single metric.

Detroit's compensation came in execution. The Wings were lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 22 rush chances. Dallas also scored 3 off the rush but from 30 rush chances, illustrating Detroit's conversion advantage.

Dylan Larkin ended it at 00:34 of overtime with a snap shot from the high slot. Larkin finished 2G in 20:47, supported by L. Raymond's 3 assists in 17:42 and M. Seider's 2 assists in 22:36. Detroit's weapons dictated despite rarely controlling play.

The power play amplified this pattern. Detroit scored 2 PPG on 14 shots (1.53 xG expected); Dallas scored 2 on 16 (1.03). Detroit held 53% of shot attempts (25–22 on goal) but won because it converted high-danger chances efficiently—and because Gibson's goaltending peaked when Dallas applied pressure.

A heist, yes. Repeatable? No.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Dec 23

DAL

DET

Red Wings edge the Stars in overtime

Chances 3.8 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Stars deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

3.76

DET

3.01

56% of the chances44%

The board read DAL 3, DET 4. The chances read DAL 3.8, DET 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

DET

+1.0

goals above expected

DET3.01 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

DAL3.76 expected · 3 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

P1 09:23DETJ. van Riemsdyk0–1
P2 10:47DALR. HintzPP1–1
P2 19:16DALJ. Benn2–1
P3 03:02DETE. FinniePP2–2
P3 11:18DALW. JohnstonPP3–2
P3 15:57DETD. LarkinPP3–3
OT 00:34DETD. Larkin3–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

DAL

43 shots

Final

81 shots

DET

38 shots

DAL DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALDET

1 / 7

1.56 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.07 xG

2 / 14

1.42 xG

Medium

2 / 14

1.47 xG

0 / 39

0.79 xG

Low

0 / 31

0.47 xG

The Red Wings buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

B+

J. Gibson

+0.8

DET · 19/22

D-

C. DeSmith

−1.0

DAL · 21/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings edge the Stars 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 5–6

09:23DETJ. van Riemsdyk(M. Rasmussen, S. Edvinsson)0–1

2ndshots 13–5

10:47DALR. Hintzpower play(M. Rantanen, J. Robertson)1–1
19:16DALJ. Benn(M. Duchene, J. Hryckowian)2–1

3rdshots 4–12

03:02DETE. Finniepower play(L. Raymond, M. Seider)2–2
11:18DALW. Johnstonpower play(M. Heiskanen, M. Rantanen)3–2
15:57DETD. Larkinpower play(J. van Riemsdyk, L. Raymond)3–3

OTshots 0–2

00:34DETD. Larkin(M. Seider, L. Raymond)3–4

score reads DAL–DET

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.01

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.030

DET puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

45.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.76Expected goals3.01

DAL 56% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal25

7High-danger chances5

60All attempts (Corsi)50

Adjusted for score: DAL 55% · DET 45%

Faceoffs · DET won46%off62%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL1 / 7 · 1.56 xG

DET2 / 5 · 1.07 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL2 / 14 · 1.42 xG

DET2 / 14 · 1.47 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL0 / 39 · 0.79 xG

DET0 / 31 · 0.47 xG

DET went 2-for-5 from high danger on 1.07 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

3 G · 3.76 xG · -0.8

DET

4 G · 3.01 xG · +1.0

012345

DAL finished -0.8 against expected, DET +1.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

WRIST0/11

SNAP2/17

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/5

TIP IN1/4

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/17

DET

WRIST3/17

SNAP1/10

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/12

DAL

DET

Off the rush

3 G on 30

2.66 xG

3 G on 22

1.79 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.53 xG

1 G on 4

0.78 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 0-for-11, DET 3-for-17. DAL scored 3 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. DeSmith

DAL · 21/25 · .840

-1.0

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.1-0.9

Medium2/141.5-0.5

Low0/310.5+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

J. Gibson

DET · 19/22 · .864

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.6+0.6

Medium2/141.4-0.6

Low0/390.8+0.8

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

43 shots

Final

81 shots

DET

38 shots

DAL DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, DET 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

L. Raymond

#23 · L · DET

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 17:42 on ice · +1

M. Seider

#53 · D · DET

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 22:36 on ice

D. Larkin

#71 · C · DET

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:47 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 23

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:34 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

This is essentially a pick'em. The model projects a 2.4 to 2.5 goal game with Detroit at exactly 50% win probability—a rarity in sports betting.

The underlying matchup explains the stalemate. Dallas dominates xG% (51.0% to 49.0%), controlling shot quality, but Detroit owns the Corsi edge (49.0% to 47.0%), suggesting more even puck trading. Dallas is running hot: their 1.024 PDO signals scoring above expected rate, while Detroit's 0.985 implies regression is overdue.

The goaltending variable matters. J. Oettinger faces a back-to-back; watch whether Dallas deploys a backup or rolls the dice with a fatigued starter.

The Stars' attack depends on Jason Robertson. He generates 0.96 xG per 60 minutes and converts at 12.4%—25 goals, 21 assists, 2 of them high-danger. Michael Bunting operates at 0.83 xG/60 with 7.6% shooting; his 8 goals and 14 assists reflect ruthless efficiency at lower volume.

Detroit's counter mirrors that threat. Alex DeBrincat owns 0.88 xG/60 and a 9.0% shooting rate, yielding 17 goals and 28 assists with 2 high-danger goals. Marco Kasper operates at 0.81 xG/60 with 7 goals and 8 assists; his 6.1% shooting and 1 high-danger goal suggest he's still finding rhythm.

Tyler Myers on the Stars' back line and Axel Sandin-Pellikka for Detroit present matching vulnerabilities. In a game this tight, defensive zone discipline in those spots could tilt the outcome.

Neither team has converted high-danger chances or rebounds at an unusual rate—both sit at 0%—a reminder that evenly matched teams leave little room for secondary scoring or luck to swing things.

The verdict stands: pick a color and hold it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 50%

50%

DET

Model favorite

50%

DAL50DET

DET by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.4–2.5 DET; 19% 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

DAL← edge

edge →DET

51.0%49.0%

47.0%49.0%

2.362.38

2.292.50

2.071.73

1.682.07

1.0240.985

DAL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 0.985) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DAL

8-2-0

+15 GD · 1d rest

DET

7-2-1

+8 GD · 2d rest

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DAL

Expected in goal

J. Oettinger

back-to-back.964 last start

Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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.

DET

Expected in goal

C. Talbot

2 days rest.939 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page