Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
Breakdown · NJD at WPG

Jets hold off the Devils

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 3 · WPG 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:15 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 Jets won 4-3, an outcome that aligned with their underlying superiority. Winnipeg controlled 57% of expected goals despite 45% of shot attempts; New Jersey outshot them 27-22, though the Jets' shots were deadlier (0.103 xG per attempt versus 0.064).

The goaltending split amplified the divergence. C. Hellebuyck stopped 24 of 27 (0.889 SV%) and ran 0.98 goals ahead of expected, while J. Allen recorded 18 of 22 saves (0.818 SV%) despite running 1.34 ahead of expected. That latter stat—an elite performance according to the model—couldn't match the scoreline.

The game tilted on Tanner Pearson's wrist shot from the doorstep in the third period. Winnipeg converted 3 of 6 rebound chances; New Jersey created 7 rebounds and converted zero. That asymmetry cost the Devils—they scored twice from low-danger locations, relying on perfection a goaltender couldn't manufacture.

High-danger chances split 9–9, suggesting both teams earned their looks. What separated them was consistency: Winnipeg crashed the net and cashed in when the bed was made. New Jersey did the work and left empty-handed.

The advanced numbers backed Winnipeg's win. The Jets outmatched the Devils where it mattered—at the scoresheet and in the model—even if the shot counter told a different story.

Three Stars:

  • #86 J. Hughes (NJD), 2A
  • #44 J. Morrissey (WPG), 2A
  • #43 L. Hughes (NJD), 2A
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 11
NJD
3
WPG
4

Jets hold off the Devils

Chances 4.0 – 5.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
3.98
WPG
5.34
43% of the chances57%

The board read NJD 3, WPG 4. The chances read NJD 4.0, WPG 5.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
−1.3
goals above expected
WPG5.34 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD3.98 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
  1. P1 18:50WPGA. Iafallo0–1
  2. P1 19:27NJDN. Hischier1–1
  3. P2 01:05NJDC. Glass2–1
  4. P2 02:36WPGJ. Toews2–2
  5. P2 08:08NJDC. Glass3–2
  6. P2 17:57WPGG. Vilardi3–3
  7. P3 06:17WPGT. Pearson3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
46 shots
3
Final
86 shots
WPG
40 shots
4
NJD attackWPG attack
NJD WPG Goal
46
shots · 3 in
40
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDWPG
1 / 9
1.95 xG
High danger
3 / 9
3.06 xG
0 / 13
1.37 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.67 xG
2 / 40
0.66 xG
Low
0 / 30
0.62 xG

The Jets buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Allen
+1.3
NJD · 18/22
B+
C. Hellebuyck
+1.0
WPG · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets hold off the Devils

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 8–8
  1. 18:50WPGA. Iafallo(N. Niederreiter, D. Samberg)0–1
  2. 19:27NJDN. Hischier(L. Hughes, J. Bratt)1–1
2ndshots 13–5
  1. 01:05NJDC. Glass(L. Hughes, J. Hughes)2–1
  2. 02:36WPGJ. Toews(C. Perfetti)2–2
  3. 08:08NJDC. Glass(J. Hughes, J. Kovacevic)3–2
  4. 17:57WPGG. Vilardi(C. Perfetti, J. Morrissey)3–3
3rdshots 6–9
  1. 06:17WPGT. Pearson(J. Morrissey, C. Koepke)3–4

score reads NJD–WPG

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.34
WPG chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.028
WPG puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.98Expected goals5.34
WPG 57% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal22
9High-danger chances9
62All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: NJD 55% · WPG 45%
Faceoffs · WPG won41%off53%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD1 / 9 · 1.95 xG
WPG3 / 9 · 3.06 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD0 / 13 · 1.37 xG
WPG1 / 13 · 1.67 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD2 / 40 · 0.66 xG
WPG0 / 30 · 0.62 xG

NJD went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.37 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
3 G · 3.98 xG · -1.0
WPG
4 G · 5.34 xG · -1.3
0123456

NJD finished -1.0 against expected, WPG -1.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
WRIST2/34
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/3
TIP IN1/3
SNAP0/1
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/16
WPG
WRIST2/12
BACKHAND1/7
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/5
SNAP0/6
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT1/2
OTHER0/12
NJD
WPG
Off the rush
1 G on 21
1.64 xG
1 G on 24
2.36 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
1.02 xG
3 G on 6
1.56 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 2-for-34, WPG 2-for-12.

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. Allen
NJD · 18/22 · .818
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/93.1+0.1
Medium1/131.7+0.7
Low0/300.6+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

C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 24/27 · .889
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/91.9+0.9
Medium0/131.4+1.4
Low2/400.7-1.3

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NJD
46 shots
3
Final
86 shots
WPG
40 shots
4
NJD attackWPG attack
NJD WPG Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD 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
J. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 27:04 on ice · +2
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 26:28 on ice · +1
L. Hughes
#43 · D · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 24:41 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Jan 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:13 AMEdited 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

This is as close to a pick'em as the model will offer: the projection runs 2.5-2.5 with Winnipeg at 51% win probability. Both teams are flawed in the same essential ways, which is why the market can't separate them.

The Devils carry a -17 goal differential over their last 10 games—a death sentence for contenders. Winnipeg's deficit is milder at -7 over the same stretch, but they're still underwater. Over a full season, the Devils hold a structural edge: 50.0% expected goal share to Winnipeg's 48.0%, and a 51.0% Corsi advantage. The problem is that New Jersey's 0.971 PDO suggests they've been stone cold on conversion and goaltending luck, and the model expects positive regression.

Winnipeg's 0.998 PDO explains their resilience—they're squeezing out luck in a season that doesn't reward their underlying play. E. Comrie is on a back-to-back assignment, so watch for either a backup start or a tired starter in net.

On offense, the Devils lean on Timo Meier's 1.08 xG/60, which has translated into 13 goals and 3 high-danger chances despite a 6.7% shooting rate. He's generating premium volume. Jack Hughes sits at 0.88 xG/60 with 18 goals but an unsustainable 11.5% shot conversion—expect regression there too.

Winnipeg counters with Kyle Connor's 0.83 xG/60 backed by 25 goals and a more realistic 13.0% shooting rate. He's the more stable finisher. Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6 goals, 3 high-danger chances) offers volatility on the wing; his 8.6% shot rate is in flux territory.

The defensive weak links are clear: Johnathan Kovacevic for New Jersey, Colin Miller for Winnipeg. Both teams have recorded 0% of their goals from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds, which signals either structural issues or small-sample noise—likely the latter in January. What matters is that neither defense has seized a compositional advantage over the other.

The Jets' slight edge in puck luck this season isn't predictive, and the Devils' recent funk isn't permanent. This game hinges on who steadies first and which team's stars recalibrate to expected output.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WPG 51%
51%
WPG
Model favorite
49%
51%
NJD50WPG

WPG by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NJD 2.5–2.5 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
NJD← edge
edge →WPG
50.0%48.0%
51.0%49.0%
2.452.34
2.502.55
1.661.90
2.232.10
0.9710.998

NJD holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 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
NJD
3-6-1
-17 GD · 2d rest
WPG
1-6-3
-7 GD · 1d rest
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • E. Comrie is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Jets are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NJD
Expected in goal
J. Allen
2 days rest.862 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

WPG
Expected in goal
E. Comrie
back-to-back.958 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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% 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