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

Red Wings hold off the Senators

The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.59–5.17 and won anyway.

DET 5 · OTT 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:18 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 stole this one. The Red Wings beat Ottawa 5-3 despite surrendering 67% of expected goals, a heist powered by J. Gibson's net.

The Senators dominated the underlying metrics: 64% of shot attempts (37–21), 5.17 xG to 2.59, and a 10–5 edge in high-danger chances. Ottawa had no business losing. But hockey is not played on a spreadsheet—it's played in the blue paint.

J. Gibson recorded a 0.919 save percentage, surpassing expectation by 2.17 goals. L. Meriläinen faltered at 0.667 (-1.89 vs expected) and was replaced by H. Shepard, who managed 0.833 (-0.52 vs expected). The variance was decisive.

Detroit's efficiency erased the possession deficit. The Red Wings converted at a 40% clip on high-danger chances (2 of 5) and were lethal transitioning up ice—three goals on 21 rush attempts. Ottawa generated better looks but failed to capitalize, underperforming their xG by 2.17 goals while the Red Wings overperformed theirs by 2.41. Michael Rasmussen's snap shot from the high slot proved the turning point, a moment where Detroit's clinical finish and Ottawa's inability to finish converged.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 5
DET
5
OTT
3

Red Wings hold off the Senators

Chances 2.6 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
2.59
OTT
5.17
33% of the chances67%

The board read DET 5, OTT 3. The chances read DET 2.6, OTT 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+2.4
goals above expected
DET2.59 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT5.17 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings scored 2.4 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 07:06DETA. Copp1–0
  2. P1 13:51DETD. LarkinPP2–0
  3. P1 19:43DETJ. van Riemsdyk3–0
  4. P2 07:33OTTC. Giroux3–1
  5. P2 14:10OTTD. CozensPP3–2
  6. P2 15:42DETL. Raymond4–2
  7. P3 06:55OTTB. Tkachuk4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
31 shots
5
Final
89 shots
OTT
58 shots
3
DET attackOTT attack
DET OTT Goal
31
shots · 5 in
58
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETOTT
2 / 5
1.21 xG
High danger
3 / 10
2.32 xG
2 / 8
0.85 xG
Medium
0 / 17
1.97 xG
1 / 32
0.53 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.88 xG

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

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Gibson
+2.2
DET · 34/37
B
H. Shepard
+0.6
OTT · 10/12
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings hold off the Senators

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 9–17
  1. 07:06DETA. Copp1–0
  2. 13:51DETD. Larkinpower play(J. van Riemsdyk, A. DeBrincat)2–0
  3. 19:43DETJ. van Riemsdyk(J. Bernard-Docker, A. Johansson)3–0
2ndshots 9–10
  1. 07:33OTTC. Giroux(F. Zetterlund, J. Spence)3–1
  2. 14:10OTTD. Cozenspower play(J. Sanderson, T. Stützle)3–2
  3. 15:42DETL. Raymond(J. Compher, J. van Riemsdyk)4–2
3rdshots 3–10
  1. 06:55OTTB. Tkachuk(T. Stützle, D. Batherson)4–3
  2. 12:53DETM. Rasmussenshorthanded(S. Edvinsson)5–3

score reads DET–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.59
DET chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.068
DET puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
39.5%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.59Expected goals5.17
OTT 67% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal37
5High-danger chances10
45All attempts (Corsi)69
Adjusted for score: DET 34% · OTT 67%
Faceoffs · OTT won77%off42%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DET2 / 5 · 1.21 xG
OTT3 / 10 · 2.32 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DET2 / 8 · 0.85 xG
OTT0 / 17 · 1.97 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DET1 / 32 · 0.53 xG
OTT0 / 42 · 0.88 xG

OTT went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 1.97 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
5 G · 2.59 xG · +2.4
OTT
3 G · 5.17 xG · -2.2
0123456

DET finished +2.4 against expected, OTT -2.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DET
WRIST2/15
SNAP3/6
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/14
OTT
WRIST3/31
SNAP0/8
SLAP0/13
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
DET
OTT
Off the rush
3 G on 21
1.31 xG
1 G on 39
3.49 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 2
0.42 xG
1 G on 2
0.34 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-15, OTT 3-for-31. DET 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
J. Gibson
DET · 34/37 · .919
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/102.3-0.7
Medium0/172.0+2.0
Low0/420.9+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

L. Meriläinen
OTT · 6/9 · .667
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium2/80.8-1.1
Low1/320.5-0.5

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

H. Shepard
OTT · 10/12 · .833
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium2/80.8-1.1
Low1/320.5-0.5

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
31 shots
5
Final
89 shots
OTT
58 shots
3
DET attackOTT attack
DET OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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
J. van Riemsdyk
#21 · L · DET
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 12:44 on ice · +2
T. Stützle
#18 · C · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 24:42 on ice · +2
J. Sanderson
#85 · D · OTT
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 28:36 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Jan 5
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:15 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 DET 2.2 - 2.7 OTT game with the Senators at 58% win probability.

The Senators own the underlying play. They generate 56.0% of 5v5 expected goals against Detroit's 49.0%, a gap that translates to territorial dominance — Ottawa's Corsi sits at 53.0% to Detroit's 49.0%. This isn't a close matchup in terms of shot volume and quality. The Senators dictate where play happens.

Detroit's goaltending enters a vulnerability window. L. Meriläinen faces a back-to-back, creating uncertainty about whether Detroit runs him out again or pivots to a backup. Either way, the workload or rust matters here.

On offense, Ottawa leans on Brady Tkachuk, whose 1.19 xG/60 leads the matchup. He's compiled 11 goals and 20 assists with 2 high-danger chances, posting a 7.5% shooting percentage. Dylan Cozens offers secondary volume at 1.00 xG/60 — 13 goals, 15 assists, 1 high-danger chance at 9.5% shooting. Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat, who carries 0.88 xG/60 but has delivered 17 goals and 28 assists, with 2 high-danger goals at a 9.0% clip. Marco Kasper rounds out Detroit's scoring: 7 goals, 8 assists, 1 high-danger goal, but only 6.1% on his chances — a sign he lacks DeBrincat's efficiency.

The efficiency gap cuts both ways. Detroit's PDO sits at 0.985, implying regression risk; Ottawa's 0.993 PDO suggests similar vulnerability. Neither team's finishing rates are sustainable, but the Senators' superior underlying numbers mean they're getting the volume advantage even if both normalize.

The model's preference for Ottawa reflects this: better possession, more dangerous play, and a more reliable scoring threat in Tkachuk. Detroit has the firepower in DeBrincat to punish Ottawa if the Senators misfire, but the structural numbers favor Ottawa's pace and possession. The goaltending situation adds a wrinkle — if Meriläinen is fatigued, it compounds Detroit's disadvantage.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 58%
58%
OTT
Model favorite
42%
58%
DET50OTT

OTT by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score DET 2.3–2.7 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
DET← edge
edge →OTT
49.0%56.0%
49.0%53.0%
2.382.66
2.502.12
1.732.18
2.071.99
0.9850.993

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DET
6-3-1
-2 GD · 2d rest
OTT
6-3-1
+7 GD · 1d rest
0.985
DET 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 49.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • L. Meriläinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DET
Expected in goal
J. Gibson
2 days rest.931 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

OTT
Expected in goal
L. Meriläinen
back-to-back.913 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
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
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