Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · WPG at OTT

Senators hold off the Jets

The verdict · stolen

The Senators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.62–3.24 and won anyway.

WPG 2 · OTT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:06 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 Senators won 4–2, but the box score doesn't reflect how close the underlying play was. Winnipeg generated more danger and better quality chances yet lost anyway—the story of the evening belonged entirely to goaltending.

Expected goals leaned Winnipeg's way, 3.62 to 3.24, a 53–47 split that favored the Jets. Ottawa controlled 54% of shot attempts, finishing 27–23 on goal, but the real gap was in high-danger chances: Winnipeg created eight to Ottawa's three. Despite that possession advantage, Winnipeg scored twice. It shouldn't have been close.

L. Meriläinen (OTT) stole the game. He made 21 of 23 saves and saved 1.62 goals above expected. C. Hellebuyck (WPG) did the opposite, allowing 0.76 goals more than his xG suggested he should. That differential in net was the deciding factor.

Claude Giroux's wrist shot from a sharp angle at 15:28 of the third period marked the turn. It came when Winnipeg had already wasted its advantage in dangerous areas, illustrating the night's theme: Ottawa made what mattered, Winnipeg did not.

Winnipeg created four rebound opportunities, Ottawa three. The Senators converted their power-play chances at an unsustainable rate—2 goals on 12 shots (0.77 expected goals). That efficiency masked the underlying reality: the Jets were the better team for forty minutes, but Meriläinen's brilliance and Winnipeg's wasteful finishing decided it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 3
WPG
2
OTT
4

Senators hold off the Jets

Chances 3.6 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
3.62
OTT
3.24
53% of the chances47%

The board read WPG 2, OTT 4. The chances read WPG 3.6, OTT 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+0.8
goals above expected
OTT3.24 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG3.62 expected · 2 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 12:08WPGA. LowrySH1–0
  2. P1 15:03OTTT. ChabotPP1–1
  3. P2 05:56OTTT. Chabot1–2
  4. P2 15:50OTTD. BathersonPP1–3
  5. P3 10:10WPGK. Connor2–3
  6. P3 15:28OTTC. Giroux2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
38 shots
2
Final
76 shots
OTT
38 shots
4
WPG attackOTT attack
WPG OTT Goal
38
shots · 2 in
38
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGOTT
1 / 8
1.96 xG
High danger
0 / 3
1.19 xG
1 / 10
1.04 xG
Medium
4 / 14
1.50 xG
0 / 42
0.62 xG
Low
0 / 29
0.55 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 8, OTT 0 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
L. Meriläinen
+1.6
OTT · 21/23
D-
C. Hellebuyck
−0.8
WPG · 23/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators hold off 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 5–9
  1. 12:08WPGA. Lowryshorthanded(K. Connor)1–0
  2. 15:03OTTT. Chabotpower play(B. Tkachuk)1–1
2ndshots 5–9
  1. 05:56OTTT. Chabot(N. Jensen, R. Greig)1–2
  2. 15:50OTTD. Bathersonpower play(T. Stützle, D. Cozens)1–3
3rdshots 13–9
  1. 10:10WPGK. Connor(D. DeMelo, J. Morrissey)2–3
  2. 15:28OTTC. Giroux(J. Sanderson, S. Pinto)2–4

score reads WPG–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.24
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.054
OTT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.62Expected goals3.24
WPG 53% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal27
8High-danger chances3
60All attempts (Corsi)46
Adjusted for score: WPG 60% · OTT 40%
Faceoffs · OTT won44%off24%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG1 / 8 · 1.96 xG
OTT0 / 3 · 1.19 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG1 / 10 · 1.04 xG
OTT4 / 14 · 1.50 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 42 · 0.62 xG
OTT0 / 29 · 0.55 xG

OTT went 4-for-14 from medium danger on 1.50 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
2 G · 3.62 xG · -1.6
OTT
4 G · 3.24 xG · +0.8
012345

WPG finished -1.6 against expected, OTT +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
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND1/4
SNAP0/3
OTHER0/22
OTT
WRIST4/28
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/1
OTHER0/8
WPG
OTT
Off the rush
1 G on 25
2.47 xG
1 G on 23
1.55 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.94 xG
1 G on 3
0.43 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-21, OTT 4-for-28.

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 · 23/27 · .852
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/31.2+1.2
Medium4/141.5-2.5
Low0/290.6+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

L. Meriläinen
OTT · 21/23 · .913
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/82.0+1.0
Medium1/101.0+0.0
Low0/420.6+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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
38 shots
2
Final
76 shots
OTT
38 shots
4
WPG attackOTT attack
WPG OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, OTT 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
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:29 on ice
T. Chabot
#72 · D · OTT
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:30 on ice
J. Sanderson
#85 · D · OTT
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 27:56 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:30 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 2.2–2.7 goal game favoring Ottawa, with the Senators at 59% win probability. That edge mirrors the underlying play.

Ottawa is the hotter team. The Senators are 6–3–1 over their last 10; the Jets sit at –8 goal differential in the same span. On season, Ottawa owns 56.0% xG at 5v5 to Winnipeg's 48.0%, and controls territory at 53.0% Corsi versus 49.0%. The Jets' 0.998 PDO suggests neutral-to-lucky execution; Ottawa's 0.993 leaves room to climb.

The goaltending matchup favors Ottawa. E. Comrie plays on a back-to-back, creating uncertainty around starter availability and freshness.

Players to Watch

Winnipeg

  • Nino Niederreiter — 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting
  • Kyle Connor — 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting

Ottawa

  • Brady Tkachuk — 1.19 xG/60, 11G 20A, 2 HD goals, 7.5% shooting
  • Dylan Cozens — 1.00 xG/60, 13G 15A, 1 HD goals, 9.5% shooting

Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60) and Connor (0.83 xG/60) manage Winnipeg's offensive volume, but neither matches the production intensity of Tkachuk (1.19 xG/60) or Cozens (1.00 xG/60). Ottawa's edge isn't just workload—it's shot quality, where both forwards operate at a higher plane.

Defensively, the gap narrows. Ottawa's Nick Jensen and Winnipeg's Colin Miller are the weak links on their respective back lines. That matters less when play-driving advantage should dictate tempo; Ottawa's control of shot quality and territory should force Winnipeg into defensive depth.

The model's 59% lean to Ottawa isn't dramatic—it's arithmetic. Corsi explains territory, xG explains shot quality, and both favor the Senators. Winnipeg isn't broken, but it's getting outworked.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 59%
59%
OTT
Model favorite
41%
59%
WPG50OTT

OTT by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score WPG 2.2–2.7 OTT; 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 →OTT
48.0%56.0%
49.0%53.0%
2.342.66
2.552.12
1.902.18
2.101.99
0.9980.993

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.993) 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
-8 GD · 1d rest
OTT
6-3-1
+8 GD · 2d rest
0.998
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • E. Comrie is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Senators are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
  • The Jets are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
WPG
Expected in goal
E. Comrie
back-to-back.800 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.

OTT
Expected in goal
L. Meriläinen
2 days rest.897 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next