The Avalanche earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
Colorado won 8-2, but expected goals said barely half a goal of advantage: 3.24 to 2.60. The Avalanche overperformed their xG model by 4.76 goals—a chasm between scoreboard and prediction.
The underlying play favored Colorado but not decisively. They held 52% of shot attempts and won high-danger chances 7–4. Their shot quality mattered: 0.051 xG per shot versus Ottawa's 0.039, a clear edge in converting attempts to dangerous chances. But goaltending tilted everything. S. Wedgewood (29/31, 0.935 SV%) played to expectation. M. Sogaard (11/16, 0.688 SV%) collapsed—3.47 goals worse than expected. L. Meriläinen (15/18, 0.833 SV%) was 1.28 under expected.
That's where the game was won. Colorado scored five low-danger goals, shots goaltenders should stop, plus six more on the rush from 28 attempts. Ottawa crashed the net on five rebound chances and converted zero. Colorado crashed on three and converted zero. Volume and finishing on marginal opportunities decided the blowout.
The power play was secondary: two goals on 15 shots, 1.47 expected goals. Dominant but not decisive.
By the numbers: Colorado played well, Sogaard imploded, and Colorado buried chances that barely register in the model. The 6-goal gap is where underlying metrics and results diverged.