Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
Breakdown · WPG at CHI

Blackhawks shut out the Jets, 2-0

The verdict · stolen

The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.96–3.46 and won anyway.

WPG 0 · CHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:35 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 Blackhawks won 2-0 despite losing the xG battle 41%-59%. Chicago converted; Winnipeg didn't.

The Jets controlled the game. They held 59% of expected goals at 5v5, generated 12 high-danger chances to Chicago's 5, created 8 rebound opportunities to Chicago's 5, and out-shot the Blackhawks 32-24. The analytics favored Winnipeg in every dimension except the scoreboard.

S. Knight made 32 saves, posting a 1.000 SV% and saving 4.96 goals above expected—the goaltending display that decided the game. C. Hellebuyck kept pace with a 0.957 SV% and +2.46 versus expected, but Winnipeg's inability to finish doomed him. The Jets went 0 for 12 on high-danger chances, underperforming their xG by 5.0 goals.

Connor Bedard's wrist shot from the wing (P3, 18:40) was the turning point—the moment this game swung Chicago's way.

A. Vlasic anchored the assists with 2 in 22:01, and I. Mikheyev added 1 in 20:26. Bedard's goal stood as the difference.

Three Stars

  • A. Vlasic (CHI) — 2A in 22:01
  • I. Mikheyev (CHI) — 1A in 20:26
  • C. Bedard (CHI) — 1G in 19:12
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 19
WPG
0
CHI
2

Blackhawks shut out the Jets, 2-0

Chances 5.0 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
4.96
CHI
3.46
59% of the chances41%

The board read WPG 0, CHI 2. The chances read WPG 5.0, CHI 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
−1.5
goals above expected
CHI3.46 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG4.96 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 5.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 13:21CHIJ. Dickinson0–1
  2. P3 18:40CHIC. BedardEN0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
49 shots
0
Final
86 shots
CHI
37 shots
2
WPG attackCHI attack
WPG CHI Goal
49
shots · 0 in
37
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGCHI
0 / 12
2.97 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.77 xG
0 / 10
1.41 xG
Medium
0 / 10
1.25 xG
0 / 43
0.59 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.43 xG

The Jets went 0 for 12 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Knight
+5.0
CHI · 32/32
A
C. Hellebuyck
+2.5
WPG · 22/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blackhawks shut out the Jets, 2-0

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 12–12no goals
    2ndshots 9–7
    1. 13:21CHIJ. Dickinson(R. Donato, A. Vlasic)0–1
    3rdshots 11–5
    1. 18:40CHIC. Bedardempty net(I. Mikheyev, A. Vlasic)0–2

    score reads WPG–CHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.46
    CHI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.039
    CHI puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.96Expected goals3.46
    WPG 59% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal24
    12High-danger chances5
    65All attempts (Corsi)51
    Adjusted for score: WPG 58% · CHI 42%
    Faceoffs · CHI won44%off86%neu56%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    WPG0 / 12 · 2.97 xG
    CHI1 / 5 · 1.77 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    WPG0 / 10 · 1.41 xG
    CHI0 / 10 · 1.25 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    WPG0 / 43 · 0.59 xG
    CHI1 / 36 · 0.43 xG

    WPG went 0-for-12 from high danger on 2.97 expected goals — 3.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    WPG
    0 G · 4.96 xG · -5.0
    CHI
    2 G · 3.46 xG · -1.5
    0123456

    WPG finished -5.0 against expected, CHI -1.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    WPG
    WRIST0/28
    SLAP0/4
    SNAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/2
    TIP IN0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    OTHER0/16
    CHI
    WRIST2/29
    SLAP0/5
    SNAP0/1
    BACKHAND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    TIP IN0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/14
    WPG
    CHI
    Off the rush
    0 G on 26
    3.05 xG
    1 G on 15
    1.19 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 8
    1.53 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.65 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-28, CHI 2-for-29.

    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. Hellebuyck
    WPG · 22/23 · .957
    +2.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.8+0.8
    Medium0/101.3+1.3
    Low1/360.4-0.6

    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

    S. Knight
    CHI · 32/32 · 1.000
    +5.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/123.0+3.0
    Medium0/101.4+1.4
    Low0/430.6+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

    86 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    WPG
    49 shots
    0
    Final
    86 shots
    CHI
    37 shots
    2
    WPG attackCHI attack
    WPG CHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, CHI 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. Vlasic
    #72 · D · CHI
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:01 on ice · +2
    I. Mikheyev
    #95 · R · CHI
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:26 on ice · +2
    C. Bedard
    #98 · C · CHI
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:12 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Jan 19
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:34 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 2.6-2.5 game with the Jets at 53% win probability — this is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Winnipeg owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Jets post a 48.0% expected goals share against Chicago's 42.0%, a difference that shows up across the board: Corsi runs 49.0% to 46.0%. Both teams are remarkably close to perfect luck (PDO at 0.998 and 0.996), so the high variance hasn't distorted either team's record yet.

    The edge belongs to Winnipeg, but the margin is thin enough that goaltending becomes critical. Both A. Soderblom and C. Hellebuyck are on back-to-backs, which introduces uncertainty—a tired starter or an unannounced backup could shift the game's complexion entirely.

    On the ice, Nino Niederreiter leads Winnipeg. He's generating 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes, owns 6 goals and 6 assists, and has buried 3 high-danger chances at an 8.6% shooting rate. Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60) paces secondary production: 25 goals and 30 assists with 2 high-danger goals, though his 13.0% shooting rate suggests some unsustainable luck. That duo represents Winnipeg's chief offensive threat.

    Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi (0.85 xG/60, 20G 15A, 7 HD goals, 18.0% shooting) and Connor Bedard (0.82 xG/60, 17G 27A, 5 HD goals, 11.8% shooting). Bertuzzi's high-danger efficiency is notable—seven high-danger goals speaks to a player who finishes what he generates. Bedard's production is anchored in volume; his 11.8% shooting rate is healthy but not extreme.

    The tactical battleground reveals weaknesses. Winnipeg shows 0% high-danger and rebound goal rates, suggesting play that leaves nothing to chance—or indicates small-sample noise. Colin Miller represents a defensive liability. Chicago mirrors that offensive tightness (0% HD and rebound rates), with Anton Frondell as the vulnerable defender. Neither team is generating chances through the dirty areas at meaningful rates, which could make this game dull or decided by execution on fewer opportunities.

    At 53%, the Jets deserve marginal respect, but the model's slight confidence reflects reality: this is a dead-even matchup dressed up in underlying metrics. The back-to-back situation adds one more variable to an already flat proposition. Lean slightly Jets, but prepare for a coin-flip result.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    WPG 53%
    53%
    WPG
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    WPG50CHI

    WPG by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.6–2.5 CHI; 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
    WPG← edge
    edge →CHI
    48.0%42.0%
    49.0%46.0%
    2.342.17
    2.552.94
    1.901.84
    2.102.41
    0.9980.996

    WPG holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.996) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    WPG
    4-4-2
    +3 GD · 1d rest
    CHI
    5-4-1
    -3 GD · 1d rest
    0.998
    WPG PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • A. Soderblom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    WPG
    Expected in goal
    C. Hellebuyck
    back-to-back.892 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.

    CHI
    Expected in goal
    A. Soderblom
    back-to-back.783 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
    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
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next