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

Wild edge the Jets in overtime

The verdict · stolen

The Wild stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.14–3.45 and won anyway.

MIN 4 · WPG 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:55 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 scoreboard lied. Minnesota won 4–3 in overtime, but the Jets controlled the game—58% of shot attempts, 3.45 expected goals to the Wild's 3.14, five high-danger chances. The underlying numbers suggested Winnipeg should have at least tied.

Minnesota won because of variance in the blue paint. The Jets converted zero of five high-danger chances, a miss rate that doesn't persist. Meanwhile, J. Wallstedt stopped all five high-danger shots he faced, a 100% save rate against the threat that matters most. That goaltending swing alone flipped a game the metrics said should go even.

The Wild also overperformed their xG by 0.86 goals. C. Hellebuyck took the loss at 0.789 SV%, sitting 0.86 below what the shot quality demanded.

Both teams succeeded in transition. The Jets buried 2 goals on 24 rush chances; the Wild 4 on 29. That slight edge in rush conversion, layered on top of high-danger variance and goaltending, was enough to steal a game Winnipeg's metrics say they owned.

The overtime winner: Matt Boldy's snap shot from the high slot at 00:39, the last punch when the stat sheet and the scoreboard told different stories.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 27
MIN
4
WPG
3

Wild edge the Jets in overtime

Chances 3.1 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Wild took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.14
WPG
3.45
48% of the chances52%

The board read MIN 4, WPG 3. The chances read MIN 3.1, WPG 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+0.9
goals above expected
MIN3.14 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG3.45 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
  1. P1 11:36WPGJ. Morrissey0–1
  2. P1 18:29MINM. Boldy1–1
  3. P2 07:33MINK. Kaprizov2–1
  4. P2 17:56WPGK. Connor2–2
  5. P2 19:57WPGM. Scheifele2–3
  6. P3 19:38MINM. ZuccarelloPP3–3
  7. OT 00:39MINM. Boldy4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
37 shots
4
Final
79 shots
WPG
42 shots
3
MIN attackWPG attack
MIN WPG Goal
37
shots · 4 in
42
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINWPG
0 / 3
0.66 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.43 xG
4 / 18
2.00 xG
Medium
3 / 13
1.36 xG
0 / 33
0.48 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.66 xG

The Jets went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
J. Wallstedt
+0.5
MIN · 23/26
D-
C. Hellebuyck
−0.9
WPG · 15/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild edge the Jets 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 5–10
  1. 11:36WPGJ. Morrissey(K. Connor, G. Vilardi)0–1
  2. 18:29MINM. Boldy(J. Spurgeon, Q. Hughes)1–1
2ndshots 6–9
  1. 07:33MINK. Kaprizov(M. Zuccarello, D. Yurov)2–1
  2. 17:56WPGK. Connor(M. Scheifele, G. Vilardi)2–2
  3. 19:57WPGM. Scheifele(J. Toews)2–3
3rdshots 7–6
  1. 19:38MINM. Zuccarellopower play(K. Kaprizov, Q. Hughes)3–3
OTshots 1–1
  1. 00:39MINM. Boldy(Q. Hughes, K. Kaprizov)4–3

score reads MIN–WPG

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.14
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.024
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.14Expected goals3.45
WPG 52% of the chance quality
19Shots on goal26
3High-danger chances5
54All attempts (Corsi)60
Adjusted for score: MIN 49% · WPG 52%
Faceoffs · WPG won62%off53%neu46%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN0 / 3 · 0.66 xG
WPG0 / 5 · 1.43 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN4 / 18 · 2.00 xG
WPG3 / 13 · 1.36 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN0 / 33 · 0.48 xG
WPG0 / 42 · 0.66 xG

MIN went 4-for-18 from medium danger on 2.00 expected goals — 2.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
4 G · 3.14 xG · +0.9
WPG
3 G · 3.45 xG · -0.5
012345

MIN finished +0.9 against expected, WPG -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
WRIST0/16
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/9
SNAP2/3
DEFLECTED1/2
BACKHAND1/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/17
WPG
WRIST1/24
SLAP1/8
TIP IN0/4
SNAP1/4
DEFLECTED0/0
BACKHAND0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/18
MIN
WPG
Off the rush
4 G on 29
2.61 xG
2 G on 24
2.03 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.31 xG
0 G on 4
0.51 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 0-for-16, WPG 1-for-24. 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
J. Wallstedt
MIN · 23/26 · .885
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.4+1.4
Medium3/131.4-1.6
Low0/420.7+0.7

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

C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 15/19 · .789
-0.9
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium4/182.0-2.0
Low0/330.5+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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MIN
37 shots
4
Final
79 shots
WPG
42 shots
3
MIN attackWPG attack
MIN WPG Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, WPG 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
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 25:37 on ice · +1
K. Kaprizov
#97 · L · MIN
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:16 on ice · +1
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 21:09 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:54 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 a 2.5–2.5 game with Minnesota at 51% win probability. This is a genuine pick'em, which matters because neither team can claim a clear edge.

Minnesota owns the underlying play. The Wild generate 52.0% expected goals at 5-on-5 compared to Winnipeg's 48.0%, a separation that should compound over time. Yet the Jets stay competitive in puck possession (49.0% Corsi to Minnesota's 48.0%), and both teams' PDO numbers are close to neutral (1.007 for the Wild, 0.998 for the Jets), meaning neither has squeezed or wasted luck this season.

The difference comes down to execution. Matt Boldy drives play for Minnesota, averaging 0.89 expected goals per 60 minutes with 22 goals, 18 assists, and 5 high-danger chances. His 13.7% shooting rate sits above league average—his 22 goals earned their ice. Robby Fabbri operates at a similar 0.88 xG/60 but hasn't converted: 2 goals on 3 assists with a 6.9% shooting rate leave upside on the board. For Winnipeg, Kyle Connor is the straightforward engine: 25 goals, 30 assists, 0.83 xG/60, and a 13.0% shooting rate that explains his scoring volume. Nino Niederreiter runs a notch below him (0.87 xG/60, 6 goals, 3 high-danger chances), so Winnipeg leans harder on Connor and depth scoring.

Neither team has solved the hard-to-score play. Both sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, a pair of outliers suggesting luck will swing both ways as the season progresses. Minnesota's defensive weak link is Matt Kiersted; Winnipeg's is Colin Miller. That asymmetry matters in a one-goal game.

The model splits the difference because it should. Minnesota's superior shot quality edges out Winnipeg's puck possession, but Winnipeg's depth at the wing and Connor's consistency are real. Call it a coin flip and move on—there's no hidden read here.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 51%
51%
MIN
Model favorite
51%
49%
MIN50WPG

MIN by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.5–2.5 WPG; 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
MIN← edge
edge →WPG
52.0%48.0%
48.0%49.0%
2.552.34
2.402.55
2.041.90
1.932.10
1.0070.998

MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 0.998) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
MIN
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
WPG
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.007
MIN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
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
Keep going

Where to next