Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Mon, Dec 29 · the slate
Breakdown · EDM at WPG

C. Pickard stands tall as the Oilers edge the Jets

FinalMon, Dec 29
EDMEdmonton Oilers3WPGWinnipeg Jets1
The verdict · stolen

The Oilers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.86–5.74 and won anyway.

EDM 3 · WPG 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:17 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

Edmonton won this game by ignoring the scoreboard: the Jets owned 60% of the expected goals at 5v5 and 67% of shot attempts, yet lost 3–1. This was a goaltending victory.

C. Pickard (EDM) stopped 41 of 42 shots at a 0.976 save percentage, outperforming his expected total by 4.74 goals. That margin—nearly five goals—erased Winnipeg's possession advantage entirely. On high-danger chances, he was perfect: 100% on 10 shots, negating the Jets' 10–6 advantage.

Winnipeg created the chances but couldn't finish. The Jets went 0 for 10 on high-danger looks and underperformed their expected goals by 4.74 goals. C. Hellebuyck (WPG) played well enough (0.900 SV%, +1.86 vs expected), but Winnipeg's offense never arrived.

Zach Hyman's wrist shot from the wing at 18:37 in the third period gave Edmonton the lead—the game's turning point.

Three Stars: #97 C. McDavid (EDM, 1A), #18 Z. Hyman (EDM, 1G), #22 M. Savoie (EDM, 1A).

Edmonton stole this one. Winnipeg controlled the game, controlled the puck, controlled the expected-goals split at 60–40. They just couldn't score.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 29
EDM
3
WPG
1

C. Pickard stands tall as the Oilers edge the Jets

Chances 3.9 – 5.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
3.86
WPG
5.74
40% of the chances60%

The board read EDM 3, WPG 1. The chances read EDM 3.9, WPG 5.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−0.9
goals above expected
EDM3.86 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG5.74 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 4.7 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. P2 08:00EDMM. Jones1–0
  2. P2 12:49EDMJ. RoslovicPP2–0
  3. P3 05:46WPGA. Lowry2–1
  4. P3 18:37EDMZ. HymanEN3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
36 shots
3
Final
99 shots
WPG
63 shots
1
EDM attackWPG attack
EDM WPG Goal
36
shots · 3 in
63
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMWPG
1 / 6
2.20 xG
High danger
0 / 10
2.68 xG
2 / 10
1.21 xG
Medium
1 / 20
2.15 xG
0 / 29
0.45 xG
Low
0 / 50
0.92 xG

The Jets went 0 for 10 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Pickard
+4.7
EDM · 41/42
A
C. Hellebuyck
+1.9
WPG · 18/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

C. Pickard stands tall as the Oilers edge the Jets

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 9–15no goals
    2ndshots 4–11
    1. 08:00EDMM. Jones1–0
    2. 12:49EDMJ. Roslovicpower play(A. Henrique, M. Savoie)2–0
    3rdshots 8–16
    1. 05:46WPGA. Lowry(M. Barron)2–1
    2. 18:37EDMZ. Hymanempty net(C. McDavid)3–1

    score reads EDM–WPG

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.86
    EDM chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.9
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.054
    EDM puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    36.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.86Expected goals5.74
    WPG 60% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal42
    6High-danger chances10
    45All attempts (Corsi)80
    Adjusted for score: EDM 33% · WPG 67%
    Faceoffs · WPG won50%off31%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    EDM1 / 6 · 2.20 xG
    WPG0 / 10 · 2.68 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    EDM2 / 10 · 1.21 xG
    WPG1 / 20 · 2.15 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    EDM0 / 29 · 0.45 xG
    WPG0 / 50 · 0.92 xG

    WPG went 0-for-10 from high danger on 2.68 expected goals — 2.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    EDM
    3 G · 3.86 xG · -0.9
    WPG
    1 G · 5.74 xG · -4.7
    01234567

    EDM finished -0.9 against expected, WPG -4.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    EDM
    WRIST3/21
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/4
    SNAP0/4
    TIP IN0/2
    POKE0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/9
    WPG
    WRIST0/36
    SLAP0/11
    BACKHAND1/5
    SNAP0/5
    TIP IN0/5
    POKE0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/17
    EDM
    WPG
    Off the rush
    1 G on 21
    1.75 xG
    1 G on 35
    3.25 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 2
    0.53 xG
    0 G on 7
    1.34 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 3-for-21, WPG 0-for-36.

    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. Pickard
    EDM · 41/42 · .976
    +4.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/102.7+2.7
    Medium1/202.1+1.1
    Low0/500.9+0.9

    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 · 18/20 · .900
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/62.2+1.2
    Medium2/101.2-0.8
    Low0/290.5+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

    99 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    EDM
    36 shots
    3
    Final
    99 shots
    WPG
    63 shots
    1
    EDM attackWPG attack
    EDM WPG Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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
    C. McDavid
    #97 · C · EDM
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:43 on ice · +1
    Z. Hyman
    #18 · L · EDM
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:02 on ice · +1
    M. Savoie
    #22 · C · EDM
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 14:18 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Dec 29
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:29 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 Edmonton 2.6 to Winnipeg 2.5 goals affair with the Oilers holding 51% win probability — close enough to a true toss-up that neither team has a meaningful edge.

    Edmonton enters hot: 6-3-1 over their last 10 games, while Winnipeg has sputtered to a minus-6 goal differential in the same span. Yet the underlying play tells a subtler story. Edmonton's 52.0% expected goals share against Winnipeg's 48.0% shows Edmonton owns the possession battle at 5v5, with their Corsi hitting 50.0% to Winnipeg's 49.0% — a whisper of control rather than dominance.

    The Oilers' edge comes with fine print. Their PDO of 0.982 suggests they're running cold, meaning their actual results are lagging their shot quality. This typically predicts positive regression. Winnipeg's 0.998 PDO, by contrast, indicates they're close to where their play should land them — which makes their recent goal differential slide look more structural than temporary.

    Both goaltenders face the same squeeze: C. Hellebuyck and C. Ingram are each on the second leg of a back-to-back, creating uncertainty around starter availability.

    Edmonton's depth carries the real threat. Zach Hyman has posted 14 goals and 13 assists while generating 1.23 xG per 60 at a 13.0% shooting clip — he's not just volume-hunting, he's finishing at rates that outpace his offensive creation. Connor McDavid, at 0.92 xG per 60, has compiled 25 goals and 33 assists with 5 high-danger chances, and his 13.7% shooting efficiency suggests he remains a tick above league baseline.

    Winnipeg counters with Kyle Connor, carrying 25 goals and 30 assists with 2 high-danger chances at 0.83 xG per 60 and a 13.0% shooting percentage. Nino Niederreiter generates 0.87 xG per 60 and has converted 3 high-danger chances into 6 goals, though his 8.6% shooting sits below league average — a sign of either bad luck or harder defensive looks.

    The matchup hinges on whether Edmonton's cold PDO and structural advantage translate to the scoreboard when starter depth is compromised. Winnipeg's minus-6 goal differential represents real vulnerability. The model is right: this is close. But Edmonton's underlying play and positive regression risk tilts the weight slightly in their favor.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    EDM 51%
    51%
    EDM
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    EDM50WPG

    EDM by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.5 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
    EDM← edge
    edge →WPG
    52.0%48.0%
    50.0%49.0%
    2.642.34
    2.472.55
    2.131.90
    2.292.10
    0.9820.998

    EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    EDM
    6-3-1
    +7 GD · 1d rest
    WPG
    2-5-3
    -6 GD · 1d rest
    0.982
    EDM 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 Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • C. Ingram is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Oilers are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
    • The Jets are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    EDM
    Expected in goal
    C. Ingram
    back-to-back.906 last start
    Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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.

    WPG
    Expected in goal
    C. Hellebuyck
    back-to-back.789 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.

    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
    EDM
    Zach Hyman14G 13A
    1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
    Connor McDavid25G 33A
    0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% 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

    Back to the front page