Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Sun, Jan 18 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at DET

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

Final / OTSun, Jan 18
OTTOttawa Senators3DETDetroit Red Wings4
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · DET 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:27 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

Detroit won 4-3 in overtime. The Red Wings dominated the expected-goals battle, controlling 61% (5.18–3.36), and out-attempted Ottawa 34–22. Yet they underperformed their xG by 1.18 goals because J. Reimer stopped 1.2 more than expected.

Execution on the rush and power play separated the teams. On the rush, Detroit scored 2 goals on 33 chances; Ottawa scored 2 on 24 (a more efficient rate). On the power play, Detroit was ruthless — 2 goals on 24 shots (3.05 xG) — while Ottawa managed 2 for 8 (0.70 xG). Detroit also converted two low-danger situations, where the opposing goaltender must be sharp. J. Gibson finished 19 of 22 saves.

A. DeBrincat won it with a snap shot from the high slot at 00:36 of overtime, finishing 1–1 in 23:14. A. Copp added two assists in 19:51. D. Batherson recorded 1–1 for Ottawa in 14:37.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 18
OTT
3
DET
4

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

Chances 3.4 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.36
DET
5.18
39% of the chances61%

The board read OTT 3, DET 4. The chances read OTT 3.4, DET 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
−1.2
goals above expected
DET5.18 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.36 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 04:26OTTD. Batherson1–0
  2. P1 05:05OTTD. CozensPP2–0
  3. P1 07:16DETA. Sandin-PellikkaPP2–1
  4. P2 06:06DETL. Raymond2–2
  5. P2 16:53DETJ. van RiemsdykPP2–3
  6. P2 19:05OTTS. PintoPP3–3
  7. OT 00:36DETA. DeBrincat3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
38 shots
3
Final
94 shots
DET
56 shots
4
OTT attackDET attack
OTT DET Goal
38
shots · 3 in
56
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTDET
2 / 7
1.43 xG
High danger
1 / 8
2.58 xG
1 / 12
1.38 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.76 xG
0 / 31
0.55 xG
Low
2 / 43
0.85 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 2 of 7, DET 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Reimer
+1.2
OTT · 30/34
B
J. Gibson
+0.4
DET · 19/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings run the Senators 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 9–9
  1. 04:26OTTD. Batherson(F. Zetterlund, T. Chabot)1–0
  2. 05:05OTTD. Cozenspower play(B. Tkachuk, D. Batherson)2–0
  3. 07:16DETA. Sandin-Pellikkapower play(P. Kane, A. Copp)2–1
2ndshots 10–15
  1. 06:06DETL. Raymond(M. Kasper, B. Chiarot)2–2
  2. 16:53DETJ. van Riemsdykpower play(D. Larkin, A. DeBrincat)2–3
  3. 19:05OTTS. Pintopower play(C. Giroux, D. Perron)3–3
3rdshots 3–9no goals
    OTshots 0–1
    1. 00:36DETA. DeBrincat(A. Copp)3–4

    score reads OTT–DET

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.18
    DET chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.000
    DET puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    57.3%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.36Expected goals5.18
    DET 61% of the chance quality
    22Shots on goal34
    7High-danger chances8
    50All attempts (Corsi)67
    Adjusted for score: OTT 41% · DET 59%
    Faceoffs · DET won50%off35%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT2 / 7 · 1.43 xG
    DET1 / 8 · 2.58 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT1 / 12 · 1.38 xG
    DET1 / 16 · 1.76 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT0 / 31 · 0.55 xG
    DET2 / 43 · 0.85 xG

    DET went 1-for-8 from high danger on 2.58 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    3 G · 3.36 xG · -0.4
    DET
    4 G · 5.18 xG · -1.2
    0123456

    OTT finished -0.4 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
    OTT
    WRIST0/16
    TIP IN1/5
    SNAP1/9
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND1/3
    BAT0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    OTHER0/12
    DET
    WRIST1/27
    TIP IN0/11
    SNAP2/5
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/6
    BAT0/1
    BETWEEN LEGS1/1
    OTHER0/11
    OTT
    DET
    Off the rush
    2 G on 24
    2.53 xG
    2 G on 33
    2.86 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 2
    0.38 xG
    1 G on 6
    1.80 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 0-for-16, DET 1-for-27. OTT scored 2 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. Reimer
    OTT · 30/34 · .882
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/82.6+1.6
    Medium1/161.8+0.8
    Low2/430.8-1.1

    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 · 19/22 · .864
    +0.4
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/71.4-0.6
    Medium1/121.4+0.4
    Low0/310.6+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

    94 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    38 shots
    3
    Final
    94 shots
    DET
    56 shots
    4
    OTT attackDET attack
    OTT DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
    A. DeBrincat
    #93 · R · DET
    1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 23:14 on ice · +1
    A. Copp
    #18 · C · DET
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:51 on ice · +1
    D. Batherson
    #19 · R · OTT
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 14:37 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Jan 18
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:25 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

    Ottawa opens as a 54 percent favorite in a matchup the model sizes at 2.6 expected goals to 2.4—genuinely even.

    The Senators' case is built on possession. They own 56.0 percent expected goals and 53.0 percent Corsi at 5v5, dominant margins that in an extended series become decisive. Detroit counters from behind: 49.0 percent in both metrics, suggesting they win when finish outpaces process. In a single game, that reversal is plausible.

    Brady Tkachuk drives Ottawa's attack at 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes, and his 11 goals come at a 7.5 percent shooting rate—below elite standard, suggesting room for regression. Dylan Cozens adds secondary punch at 1.00 xG/60 and 13 goals, but a 9.5 percent shooting rate hints at unsustainable efficiency. Alex DeBrincat's profile inverts: he generates only 0.88 xG/60 yet has 17 goals at 9.0 percent, implying elite finishing compensates for fewer chances. Marco Kasper, at 0.81 xG/60 and 6.1 percent shooting, barely registers and can't rescue Detroit if Ottawa's possession translates to goals.

    The verdict is taut. Ottawa's underlying advantage is real but depends on finishing; Detroit's efficiency edge is real but depends on getting chances. The Senators should win this game on balance. The Red Wings can. The 54 percent split between them is accurate.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 54%
    54%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    54%
    46%
    OTT50DET

    OTT by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.4 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
    OTT← edge
    edge →DET
    56.0%49.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.662.38
    2.122.50
    2.181.73
    1.992.07
    0.9930.985

    OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.985) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    OTT
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    DET
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.993
    OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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