Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
Breakdown · WPG at DET

Red Wings steal one from the Jets against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.59–1.15 and won anyway.

WPG 1 · DET 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:36 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

The Red Wings won 2–1 despite Winnipeg's dominant shot quality. The Jets generated 2.59 expected goals to Detroit's 1.15—a 69–31 split that should have delivered a home victory. Detroit's goaltending delivered the heist.

At 5v5, Winnipeg controlled 69% of expected goals while Detroit managed just 44% of shot attempts (19–24). The Jets had the only two high-danger chances. Yet the scoreboard read Red Wings 2, Jets 1. J. Gibson stopped everything—23 saves on 24 shots, +1.59 versus expected. C. Hellebuyck conceded two on 19 shots, -0.85 versus expected.

The variance breakdown is stark. Detroit overperformed its xG by 0.85; Winnipeg underperformed by 1.59. Logan Stanley's wrist shot from a sharp angle (7:04, third period) accounted for Winnipeg's lone goal. The Red Wings scored twice on far less.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 31
WPG
1
DET
2

Red Wings steal one from the Jets against the run of play

Chances 2.6 – 1.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
2.59
DET
1.15
69% of the chances31%

The board read WPG 1, DET 2. The chances read WPG 2.6, DET 1.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+0.8
goals above expected
DET1.15 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG2.59 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 1.6 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. P1 08:22DETD. LarkinPP0–1
  2. P1 14:48DETM. Appleton0–2
  3. P3 07:04WPGL. Stanley1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
35 shots
1
Final
58 shots
DET
23 shots
2
WPG attackDET attack
WPG DET Goal
35
shots · 1 in
23
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGDET
0 / 2
0.44 xG
High danger
0 / 0
0.00 xG
0 / 14
1.63 xG
Medium
1 / 7
0.69 xG
1 / 39
0.52 xG
Low
1 / 27
0.45 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 0 of 2, DET 0 of 0.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Gibson
+1.6
DET · 23/24
D-
C. Hellebuyck
−0.8
WPG · 17/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings steal one from the Jets against the run of play

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. 08:22DETD. Larkinpower play(M. Seider, L. Raymond)0–1
  2. 14:48DETM. Appleton(J. Compher, M. Rasmussen)0–2
2ndshots 11–6no goals
    3rdshots 8–3
    1. 07:04WPGL. Stanley(J. Toews)1–2

    score reads WPG–DET

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    1.15
    DET chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.8
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.041
    DET puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    38.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.59Expected goals1.15
    WPG 69% of the chance quality
    24Shots on goal19
    2High-danger chances0
    55All attempts (Corsi)34
    Adjusted for score: WPG 67% · DET 33%
    Faceoffs · DET won50%off58%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    WPG0 / 2 · 0.44 xG
    DET0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    WPG0 / 14 · 1.63 xG
    DET1 / 7 · 0.69 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    WPG1 / 39 · 0.52 xG
    DET1 / 27 · 0.45 xG

    WPG went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.63 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    WPG
    1 G · 2.59 xG · -1.6
    DET
    2 G · 1.15 xG · +0.8
    0123

    WPG finished -1.6 against expected, DET +0.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    WPG
    WRIST1/21
    SNAP0/3
    TIP IN0/3
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/20
    DET
    WRIST0/8
    SNAP2/8
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/1
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/11
    WPG
    DET
    Off the rush
    1 G on 26
    2.11 xG
    2 G on 17
    1.06 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.23 xG
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-21, DET 0-for-8. DET 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 · 17/19 · .895
    -0.8
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    Medium1/70.7-0.3
    Low1/270.5-0.6

    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 · 23/24 · .958
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium0/141.6+1.6
    Low1/390.5-0.5

    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

    58 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    WPG
    35 shots
    1
    Final
    58 shots
    DET
    23 shots
    2
    WPG attackDET attack
    WPG DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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
    M. Seider
    #53 · D · DET
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 27:48 on ice
    D. Larkin
    #71 · C · DET
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:26 on ice
    L. Raymond
    #23 · L · DET
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:33 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Dec 31
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:32 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 Red Wings enter as slight favorites—53% win probability according to the pregame model—but barely. The projection calls for a 2.4 to 2.6 goal spread, a genuine coin flip with the merest edge to Detroit.

    Recent form tilts slightly toward Detroit. The Red Wings are 7-3-0 over their last 10 games; the Jets carry a -11 goal differential across the same stretch, a significant underwater mark. Season-wide 5v5 metrics tell a similar story of marginal separation: Detroit edges Winnipeg 49.0% to 48.0% in expected goals percentage, while both sit at 49.0% in Corsi. PDO—the ratio of goals scored to shots that should score—reveals a small efficiency gap: Winnipeg at 0.998, Detroit at 0.985, suggesting the Jets have gotten lucky and the Wings regressing toward mean.

    The goaltending angle matters here. C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back, a variable that could mean either a backup start or a tired starter trying to steal points.

    On offense, Nino Niederreiter anchors Winnipeg's attack at 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes—elite shot creation—backing that with 6 goals and 6 assists. His 3 high-danger goals represent surgical finishing at an 8.6% shooting rate. Kyle Connor, the Jets' point leader with 25 goals and 30 assists, generates slightly less at 0.83 xG/60 but shoots at 13.0%, the sharpness of a scorer clicking.

    Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat, who leads the matchup at 0.88 xG/60, compiled from 17 goals and 28 assists with a 9.0% shoot rate. Marco Kasper, the secondary option, sits at 0.81 xG/60 through 7 goals and 8 assists but converts at just 6.1%—room to improve if the sheltering shifts.

    Both teams have produced no high-danger or rebound goals so far—an unsustainable floor. Winnipeg's Colin Miller and Detroit's Axel Sandin-Pellikka are the primary defensive weak links, and whoever exploits these vulnerabilities first likely takes the night.

    There's no confident read here—just the barest of edges.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DET 53%
    53%
    DET
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    WPG50DET

    DET by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.4–2.6 DET; 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
    WPG← edge
    edge →DET
    48.0%49.0%
    49.0%49.0%
    2.342.38
    2.552.50
    1.901.73
    2.102.07
    0.9980.985

    DET holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.985) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    WPG
    1-6-3
    -11 GD · 1d rest
    DET
    7-3-0
    +3 GD · 2d rest
    0.998
    WPG PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Things to watch
    • C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Red Wings are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
    • The Jets are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    WPG
    Expected in goal
    C. Hellebuyck
    back-to-back.900 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.

    DET
    Expected in goal
    C. Talbot
    2 days rest.926 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
    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
    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