Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater

Breakdown · EDM at WPG

Oilers run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Jan 8

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 4 · WPG 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:20 AMxG: 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 Oilers' 4-3 victory flattered the Jets—Edmonton controlled 68% of 5v5 expected goals (3.96–1.84), a margin that should have produced a wider win. The scoreline's tightness owed entirely to variance: the Jets overperformed their expected goals by 1.16, converting three goals from chances that defied the numbers.

Edmonton dominated at both volume and quality. Winnipeg managed 35% of shot attempts (16–30) and ceded high-danger chances 1–7. The Oilers' efficiency advantage was stark: 0.076 expected goals per shot versus 0.046. C. Pickard (EDM) proved vulnerable; his 13 saves on 16 shots yielded a 0.812 save percentage, running 1.16 goals worse than expected, yet Edmonton still built separation.

The Jets' opportunism masked a one-sided contest. They scored twice from low-danger areas—the sort of chances opposing goalies should steal. But Winnipeg found another path to competitiveness: rush chances. Both teams converted ruthlessly in transition. EDM scored four goals on 25 rush attempts; WPG matched that edge with three goals on 24 rushes. Transition play kept the margin tight.

C. Hellebuyck (WPG) partially offset Edmonton's dominance, posting a 0.867 save percentage. E. Bouchard (EDM) punctuated the Oilers' control: his snap shot from the high slot at 10:37 of the third period sealed their command. M. Scheifele (WPG) recorded two assists in a losing effort, evidence that individual excellence coexists with team-wide defeat.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 8

EDM

WPG

Oilers run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.0 – 1.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

EDM

3.96

WPG

1.84

68% of the chances32%

The board read EDM 4, WPG 3. The chances read EDM 4.0, WPG 1.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

EDM

+0.0

goals above expected

EDM3.96 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG1.84 expected · 3 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

P1 11:11WPGK. Connor0–1
P1 17:02EDMV. Podkolzin1–1
P1 18:16WPGT. Pearson1–2
P1 18:56WPGJ. Morrissey1–3
P2 19:39EDMC. McDavid2–3
P3 08:19EDMZ. Hyman3–3
P3 10:37EDME. BouchardPP4–3

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

EDM

42 shots

Final

73 shots

WPG

31 shots

EDM WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

EDMWPG

2 / 7

1.88 xG

High danger

0 / 1

0.19 xG

2 / 16

1.66 xG

Medium

1 / 9

0.91 xG

0 / 29

0.42 xG

Low

2 / 30

0.74 xG

The Oilers buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

C. Hellebuyck

−0.0

WPG · 26/30

D-

C. Pickard

−1.2

EDM · 13/16

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Jets 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 7–11

11:11WPGK. Connor(M. Scheifele, A. Iafallo)0–1
17:02EDMV. Podkolzin(K. Kapanen, T. Emberson)1–1
18:16WPGT. Pearson(C. Koepke)1–2
18:56WPGJ. Morrissey(K. Connor, M. Scheifele)1–3

2ndshots 12–3

19:39EDMC. McDavid(L. Draisaitl, E. Bouchard)2–3

3rdshots 11–2

08:19EDMZ. Hyman(D. Nurse)3–3
10:37EDME. Bouchardpower play(R. Nugent-Hopkins, C. McDavid)4–3

score reads EDM–WPG

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.96

EDM chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.002

EDM puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

56.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.96Expected goals1.84

EDM 68% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal16

7High-danger chances1

52All attempts (Corsi)40

Adjusted for score: EDM 60% · WPG 40%

Faceoffs · WPG won47%off53%neu38%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

EDM2 / 7 · 1.88 xG

WPG0 / 1 · 0.19 xG

Medium dangermid-range

EDM2 / 16 · 1.66 xG

WPG1 / 9 · 0.91 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

EDM0 / 29 · 0.42 xG

WPG2 / 30 · 0.74 xG

WPG went 2-for-30 from low danger on 0.74 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

EDM

4 G · 3.96 xG · +0.0

WPG

3 G · 1.84 xG · +1.2

012345

EDM finished +0.0 against expected, WPG +1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

EDM

WRIST3/25

SNAP1/8

BACKHAND0/4

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/10

WPG

WRIST1/10

SNAP2/7

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/4

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/9

EDM

WPG

Off the rush

4 G on 25

2.27 xG

3 G on 24

1.43 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

1.17 xG

0 G on 2

0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 3-for-25, WPG 1-for-10. EDM scored 4 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. Pickard

EDM · 13/16 · .812

-1.2

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium1/90.9-0.1

Low2/300.7-1.3

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 · 26/30 · .867

-0.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/71.9-0.1

Medium2/161.7-0.3

Low0/290.4+0.4

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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

EDM

42 shots

Final

73 shots

WPG

31 shots

EDM WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

E. Bouchard

#2 · D · EDM

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 26:02 on ice

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 24:24 on ice · +1

M. Scheifele

#55 · C · WPG

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:43 on ice

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, 11:55 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 gives Edmonton a 51% win probability. This is a pick'em—a statistical coin flip.

Edmonton has the underlying advantage. The Oilers own a 52.0% expected goals share at 5v5 to Winnipeg's 48.0%, meaning Edmonton will generate better scoring chances. That same dominance carries into shot volume: Edmonton's 50.0% Corsi barely trails Winnipeg's 49.0%.

But Edmonton runs cold. The Oilers' 0.982 PDO—a measure of shooting and goaltending luck—indicates they've been underperforming their expected output. They're scoring less frequently than their chances warrant and allowing slightly more. That luck asymmetry typically corrects. Their 6-4-0 record over the last 10 games has been inflated by a temporary advantage that models project will revert.

Winnipeg is in a slump. The Jets carry a minus-12 goal differential over their last 10, which understates how thoroughly they've been outplayed. They'll need to tighten on the back end; Colin Miller has been a defensive liability.

Goaltending could be the variable. C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back for Winnipeg, while C. Ingram faces the same situation for Edmonton. Either could see a backup in net, or both could start fatigued.

The star power cuts in Edmonton's favor. Connor McDavid has 25 goals on a 13.7% shooting rate—elite for a 0.92 expected goals per 60 player. Zach Hyman has been prolific with 14 goals and 13 assists at 1.23 xG/60, running a 13.0% shooting rate that's also elevated. Winnipeg's Kyle Connor (25 goals, 13.0% shooting, 0.83 xG/60) is their nearest equivalent, with Nino Niederreiter offering secondary scoring at 0.87 xG/60 and 6 goals and 6 assists. Jake Walman remains a weakness on Edmonton's defense.

The underlying advantage favors Edmonton. The 51% win probability reflects that edge: small, but real.

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

6-4-0

+4 GD · 1d rest

WPG

0-6-4

-12 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 (6-4-0 in their last 10).
The Jets are underwater at -12 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.923 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.871 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