Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Thu, Jan 8 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at DET

Red Wings run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Jan 8
VANVancouver Canucks1DETDetroit Red Wings5
The verdict · earned

The Red Wings earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

VAN 1 · DET 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:49 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

Shot attempts nearly tied (25 on goal for each team), but expected goals diverged sharply: Detroit controlled 60% (3.81–2.48). That gap in shot quality—0.069 xG per shot versus Vancouver's 0.035—is what transformed an even workload into a 5-1 rout.

High-danger chances followed the same pattern. Detroit created three; Vancouver one. K. Lankinen stopped 20 of 24 (0.833 SV%), but J. Gibson's 23 saves on 24 (0.958 SV%) yielded a 1.48-goal improvement on expected. Detroit also beat its xG by 1.19; the Canucks fell 1.48 short of theirs.

Lucas Raymond's snap shot from the slot (P3, 18:10) marked the turning point. From there, the Red Wings exploited the rush—five goals on 25 chances, a punishing efficiency. Vancouver never translated its pockets of quality into volume, a classic mismatch between chance creation and finish.

Three Stars

  • #23 L. Raymond (DET) — 1G, 1A in 16:45
  • #21 J. van Riemsdyk (DET) — 2A in 16:39
  • #44 A. Sandin-Pellikka (DET) — 1G, 1A in 15:55
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 8
VAN
1
DET
5

Red Wings run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.48
DET
3.81
40% of the chances61%

The board read VAN 1, DET 5. The chances read VAN 2.5, DET 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+1.2
goals above expected
DET3.81 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.48 expected · 1 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 19:31DETP. KanePP0–1
  2. P2 05:09DETA. Sandin-Pellikka0–2
  3. P2 07:03VANJ. DeBruskPP1–2
  4. P2 10:10DETJ. Compher1–3
  5. P3 16:07DETP. KaneEN1–4
  6. P3 18:10DETL. Raymond1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
42 shots
1
Final
82 shots
DET
40 shots
5
VAN attackDET attack
VAN DET Goal
42
shots · 1 in
40
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANDET
0 / 1
0.22 xG
High danger
2 / 3
1.14 xG
1 / 15
1.60 xG
Medium
3 / 18
2.18 xG
0 / 54
0.66 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.50 xG

The Red Wings buried 2 of 3 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Gibson
+1.5
DET · 23/24
C
K. Lankinen
−0.2
VAN · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 10–10
  1. 19:31DETP. Kanepower play(L. Raymond, D. Larkin)0–1
2ndshots 4–8
  1. 05:09DETA. Sandin-Pellikka(J. van Riemsdyk, J. Compher)0–2
  2. 07:03VANJ. DeBruskpower play(K. Sherwood, B. Boeser)1–2
  3. 10:10DETJ. Compher(J. van Riemsdyk, A. Sandin-Pellikka)1–3
3rdshots 10–7
  1. 16:07DETP. Kaneempty net(A. Copp)1–4
  2. 18:10DETL. Raymond1–5

score reads VAN–DET

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.81
DET chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.077
DET puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.48Expected goals3.81
DET 61% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal25
1High-danger chances3
70All attempts (Corsi)55
Adjusted for score: VAN 60% · DET 40%
Faceoffs · DET won41%off33%neu58%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN0 / 1 · 0.22 xG
DET2 / 3 · 1.14 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN1 / 15 · 1.60 xG
DET3 / 18 · 2.18 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 54 · 0.66 xG
DET0 / 34 · 0.50 xG

DET went 2-for-3 from high danger on 1.14 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
1 G · 2.48 xG · -1.5
DET
5 G · 3.81 xG · +1.2
0123456

VAN finished -1.5 against expected, DET +1.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST0/21
SNAP1/6
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/28
DET
WRIST2/21
SNAP3/7
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/15
VAN
DET
Off the rush
1 G on 25
1.67 xG
5 G on 25
2.95 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.36 xG
0 G on 3
0.31 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-21, DET 2-for-21. DET scored 5 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
K. Lankinen
VAN · 20/24 · .833
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/31.1-0.9
Medium3/182.2-0.8
Low0/340.5+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

J. Gibson
DET · 23/24 · .958
+1.5
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/151.6+0.6
Low0/540.7+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
42 shots
1
Final
82 shots
DET
40 shots
5
VAN attackDET attack
VAN DET Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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
L. Raymond
#23 · L · DET
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:45 on ice · +3
J. van Riemsdyk
#21 · L · DET
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:39 on ice · +2
A. Sandin-Pellikka
#44 · D · DET
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:55 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 8
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:46 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 2.4–2.7 goal Red Wings win with Detroit holding 56% win probability. This leans on Detroit's superior underlying play: the Red Wings generate 49.0% of expected goals at 5v5, while Vancouver manages only 44.0%.

The advantage extends across shot-generation metrics. Detroit's Corsi sits at 49.0% versus Vancouver's 46.0%, indicating sustained territorial control. This structural edge should persist.

Vancouver's path to an upset requires positive regression. The Canucks operate at a 0.974 PDO, running cold relative to their expected-goal rate. That gap eventually closes toward league average, but it hasn't yet. Detroit's 0.985 PDO sits closer to neutral, leaving less room for favorable variance to work in their favor.

Recent form compounds the structural gap. Vancouver enters with -5 goal differential over their last ten games. The Red Wings carry no parallel weakness.

Detroit's territorial dominance and top-line production back the model's projection. For Vancouver, Filip Chytil's 1.03 xG/60 represents above-average creation, yet he has posted only 3G—the opportunity exceeds the output. This gap between potential and delivery tends to close, but whether it closes for or against the model is the critical question.

The Red Wings' underlying advantage should translate to wins. Vancouver's regression is possible, but it requires breaking through Detroit's territorial edge first.

Players to Watch

Vancouver

  • Filip Chytil — 1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting
  • Drew O'Connor — 0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

Detroit

  • Alex DeBrincat — 0.88 xG/60, 17G 28A, 2 HD goals, 9.0% shooting
  • Marco Kasper — 0.81 xG/60, 7G 8A, 1 HD goals, 6.1% shooting
What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 56%
56%
DET
Model favorite
44%
56%
VAN50DET

DET by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.4–2.7 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
VAN← edge
edge →DET
44.0%49.0%
46.0%49.0%
2.222.38
2.812.50
1.601.73
2.562.07
0.9740.985

DET holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 0.985) says DET has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
VAN
4-4-2
-5 GD · 1d rest
DET
6-3-1
-1 GD · 2d rest
0.974
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.985
DET PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Red Wings own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Red Wings own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • The Canucks are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% 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

Back to the front page