Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
Breakdown · NSH at COL

Predators run the Avalanche off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

NSH 7 · COL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:06 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

Colorado out-shot Nashville 43–30 but lost 7–3, a sign that volume masked a quality gap. The Predators controlled 61% of expected goals at 5v5, converting chances at an elite rate while the Avalanche squandered theirs.

Nashville's shots were sharper: 0.081 expected goals per attempt versus Colorado's 0.045. The Predators finished 5 for 6 on high-danger chances (83%), a clinical performance in the scoring areas. Colorado's shot volume meant little when confined to low-probability attempts.

Goaltending amplified the underlying edge. J. Saros stopped 40 of 43 (0.930 save percentage), while M. Blackwood faced a steeper hill at 23 of 28 (0.821). The gap understates the mismatch—Saros worked behind superior defensive support and received easier looks.

Nashville overperformed their expected goals by 2.41 goals, a sign of either elite finish or fortunate bounces. The Predators were lethal on the transition, converting 5 of 24 rush chances. Michael McCarron's doorstep wrist shot early in the third period (17:41) set the tone for dominance to follow.

The Avalanche had the shot volume but none of the danger. Colorado's high-danger chance rate (4 to Nashville's 6) reflected their difficulty creating quality opportunities against a Nashville defense that dictated pace and placement.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 16
NSH
7
COL
3

Predators run the Avalanche off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.6 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
4.59
COL
2.96
61% of the chances39%

The board read NSH 7, COL 3. The chances read NSH 4.6, COL 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
+2.4
goals above expected
NSH4.59 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
COL2.96 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Predators 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 00:30NSHR. O'Reilly1–0
  2. P1 01:24COLB. Nelson1–1
  3. P1 07:32NSHR. O'Reilly2–1
  4. P1 11:16COLB. Nelson2–2
  5. P2 13:01NSHR. O'Reilly3–2
  6. P2 18:04NSHM. Bunting4–2
  7. P3 01:09COLM. Necas4–3
+3 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
39 shots
7
Final
92 shots
COL
53 shots
3
NSH attackCOL attack
NSH COL Goal
39
shots · 7 in
53
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHCOL
5 / 6
2.86 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.77 xG
1 / 9
1.09 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.46 xG
1 / 42
0.65 xG
Low
0 / 49
0.72 xG

The Predators buried 5 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
J. Saros
−0.0
NSH · 40/43
D
M. Blackwood
−0.4
COL · 23/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators run the Avalanche 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 11–17
  1. 00:30NSHR. O'Reilly(F. Forsberg)1–0
  2. 01:24COLB. Nelson(B. Burns, V. Nichushkin)1–1
  3. 07:32NSHR. O'Reilly(L. Evangelista, F. Forsberg)2–1
  4. 11:16COLB. Nelson(J. Manson, S. Malinski)2–2
2ndshots 11–16
  1. 13:01NSHR. O'Reilly(L. Evangelista, R. Josi)3–2
  2. 18:04NSHM. Bunting(S. Stamkos)4–2
3rdshots 8–10
  1. 01:09COLM. Necas(N. MacKinnon, A. Lehkonen)4–3
  2. 15:13NSHF. Forsbergpower play(R. O'Reilly, R. Josi)5–3
  3. 17:04NSHS. Stamkosempty net(M. Bunting, R. Josi)6–3
  4. 17:41NSHM. McCarronempty net7–3

score reads NSH–COL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.59
NSH chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.077
NSH puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.59Expected goals2.96
NSH 61% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal43
6High-danger chances4
57All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: NSH 44% · COL 56%
Faceoffs · COL won41%off26%neu40%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NSH5 / 6 · 2.86 xG
COL1 / 4 · 0.77 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NSH1 / 9 · 1.09 xG
COL2 / 13 · 1.46 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NSH1 / 42 · 0.65 xG
COL0 / 49 · 0.72 xG

NSH went 5-for-6 from high danger on 2.86 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NSH
7 G · 4.59 xG · +2.4
COL
3 G · 2.96 xG · +0.0
012345678

NSH finished +2.4 against expected, COL +0.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NSH
WRIST6/27
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND1/4
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/18
COL
WRIST1/28
SNAP1/9
BACKHAND1/5
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/6
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/13
NSH
COL
Off the rush
5 G on 24
2.38 xG
1 G on 25
1.80 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.53 xG
1 G on 2
0.28 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 6-for-27, COL 1-for-28. NSH 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
J. Saros
NSH · 40/43 · .930
-0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.8-0.2
Medium2/131.5-0.5
Low0/490.7+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

M. Blackwood
COL · 23/28 · .821
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger5/62.9-2.1
Medium1/91.1+0.1
Low1/420.7-0.3

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NSH
39 shots
7
Final
92 shots
COL
53 shots
3
NSH attackCOL attack
NSH COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH left, COL 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
R. O'Reilly
#90 · C · NSH
3 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 19:44 on ice · +4
R. Josi
#59 · D · NSH
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 26:16 on ice · +3
F. Forsberg
#9 · L · NSH
1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 18:35 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Jan 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:44 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

The model projects a NSH 2.4 - 3.0 COL game with Colorado favored at 59% win probability. The edge is structural: Colorado's control of underlying play.

The Avalanche own 57.0% 5v5 xG against Nashville's 49.0%—a meaningful gap in chance generation. Territorial possession mirrors this at 57.0% Corsi. These margins suggest Colorado's dominance runs deeper than randomness.

There's a caveat. Colorado's PDO is 1.021, running above equilibrium, while Nashville's 0.992 trends the other way. Part of Colorado's edge is real (shot quality and goaltending); part is borrowed through puck luck. Expect some regression toward the mean, which compresses but doesn't erase Colorado's advantage.

Players to Watch

For Nashville, Zachary L'Heureux remains dangerous at 0.85 xG/60 despite 4G on just 16.0% shooting—he's underperforming his volume. Filip Forsberg provides the proven output: 23G 17A with 13.6% efficiency backed by 0.80 xG/60. One line carries the threat.

Colorado distributes danger more. Artturi Lehkonen leads at 1.11 xG/60 and converts at 14.9%, producing 18G 22A. Ross Colton matches the volume at 1.10 xG/60 but underperforms at 4.9% shooting, registering 7G 15A—a gap suggesting upside if his finishing tightens.

Where Defenses Break

Nashville's Achilles heel is Jonathan Marchessault's positioning; Colorado should exploit him in transition. Colorado's Nazem Kadri carries a similar defensive liability.

The model's lean is clean. Colorado has the volume edge and, after accounting for PDO regression, likely keeps it. Nashville's path requires Colorado to regress while executing defensively. At 59% and a 2.4-goal spread, that's a Colorado lean worth taking.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 59%
59%
COL
Model favorite
41%
59%
NSH50COL

COL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score NSH 2.4–3.0 COL; 17% 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
NSH← edge
edge →COL
49.0%57.0%
50.0%57.0%
2.483.03
2.582.30
1.842.63
2.211.56
0.9921.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NSH
6-4-0
-4 GD · 2d rest
COL
7-2-1
+18 GD · 3d rest
0.992
NSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NSH
Expected in goal
J. Saros
2 days rest.903 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

COL
Expected in goal
T. Miner
3 days rest.903 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next