Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
Breakdown · MIN at MTL

Canadiens hold off the Wild

The verdict · coin flip

The Canadiens won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

MIN 3 · MTL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:39 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

Montreal's 4-3 victory masks a close underlying game. Expected goals favored Minnesota 2.46 to 2.29 — a 48-52 split — yet the Canadiens overperformed by 1.71 goals, suggesting elite finishing or favorable variance rather than dominance.

The goaltending split explains much of the margin. J. Wallstedt stopped 29 of 33 for the Wild, posting a 0.879 save percentage 1.71 goals worse than expected. J. Dobes recorded 17 of 20 saves for Montreal at 0.850, also underperforming but by only 0.54 goals while facing fewer dangerous looks.

Montreal controlled shot attempts at 62% (33-20 on goal), yet the quality gap ran the opposite direction. Minnesota generated 0.052 expected goals per shot; Montreal 0.030 — the Wild were nearly twice as efficient. This edge crystallized on the power play: Minnesota scored 2 goals on 11 shots for 0.72 xG, a dominant special-teams showing.

The deciding factor was the rush. Montreal buried 3 goals on 28 rush opportunities; Minnesota converted 2 of 21. That single-goal gap on transition is why Montreal leaves with the win despite the Wild's superior shot quality and more efficient offense.

Cole Caufield's slap shot from the top of the circles (19:45, period 3) marked the turning point — a moment exemplifying Montreal's conversion rate when the xG model predicted something closer.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 20
MIN
3
MTL
4

Canadiens hold off the Wild

Chances 2.5 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Canadiens took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
2.46
MTL
2.29
52% of the chances48%

The board read MIN 3, MTL 4. The chances read MIN 2.5, MTL 2.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
+1.7
goals above expected
MTL2.29 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN2.46 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canadiens scored 1.7 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 10:44MINV. TarasenkoPP1–0
  2. P1 15:22MTLP. Danault1–1
  3. P1 19:08MTLA. Carrier1–2
  4. P2 10:16MINB. Faber2–2
  5. P2 12:35MTLL. Hutson2–3
  6. P3 12:40MINV. TarasenkoPP3–3
  7. P3 19:45MTLC. Caufield3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
34 shots
3
Final
83 shots
MTL
49 shots
4
MIN attackMTL attack
MIN MTL Goal
34
shots · 3 in
49
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINMTL
1 / 4
1.00 xG
High danger
0 / 0
0.00 xG
1 / 8
0.93 xG
Medium
3 / 15
1.47 xG
1 / 35
0.54 xG
Low
1 / 60
0.82 xG

High-danger looks: MIN 1 of 4, MTL 0 of 0.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
J. Dobes
−0.5
MTL · 17/20
F
J. Wallstedt
−1.7
MIN · 29/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens hold off the Wild

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 2–15
  1. 10:44MINV. Tarasenkopower play(M. Zuccarello, Q. Hughes)1–0
  2. 15:22MTLP. Danault(J. Anderson, K. Guhle)1–1
  3. 19:08MTLA. Carrier(M. Matheson, I. Demidov)1–2
2ndshots 10–9
  1. 10:16MINB. Faber(K. Kaprizov, V. Hinostroza)2–2
  2. 12:35MTLL. Hutson(I. Demidov, J. Struble)2–3
3rdshots 8–9
  1. 12:40MINV. Tarasenkopower play(K. Kaprizov, M. Zuccarello)3–3
  2. 19:45MTLC. Caufield(N. Suzuki, L. Hutson)3–4

score reads MIN–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.29
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.990
MTL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
61.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.46Expected goals2.29
MIN 52% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal33
4High-danger chances0
47All attempts (Corsi)75
Adjusted for score: MIN 40% · MTL 60%
Faceoffs · MTL won64%off47%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN1 / 4 · 1.00 xG
MTL0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN1 / 8 · 0.93 xG
MTL3 / 15 · 1.47 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN1 / 35 · 0.54 xG
MTL1 / 60 · 0.82 xG

MTL went 3-for-15 from medium danger on 1.47 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
3 G · 2.46 xG · +0.5
MTL
4 G · 2.29 xG · +1.7
012345

MIN finished +0.5 against expected, MTL +1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
SNAP3/27
TIP IN0/0
BACKHAND0/2
WRIST0/1
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/13
MTL
SNAP1/26
TIP IN1/13
BACKHAND0/4
WRIST0/3
SLAP2/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/26
MIN
MTL
Off the rush
2 G on 21
1.53 xG
3 G on 28
1.39 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.78 xG
1 G on 5
0.39 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: MIN went 3-for-27, MTL 1-for-26. MTL scored 3 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. Wallstedt
MIN · 29/33 · .879
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
Medium3/151.5-1.5
Low1/600.8-0.2

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. Dobes
MTL · 17/20 · .850
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.0+0.0
Medium1/80.9-0.1
Low1/350.5-0.5

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MIN
34 shots
3
Final
83 shots
MTL
49 shots
4
MIN attackMTL attack
MIN MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, MTL 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
K. Kaprizov
#97 · L · MIN
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:40 on ice
M. Zuccarello
#36 · R · MIN
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:52 on ice · -1
L. Hutson
#48 · D · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:29 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:38 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

Minnesota's model projection of 2.6 expected goals to Montreal's 2.5, with the Wild at 51% win probability, describes a game that could plausibly go either way.

The underlying play belongs to Minnesota. At 5v5, the Wild hold a 52.0% expected goals share against Montreal's 48.0%—a meaningful edge in shot quality that typically sustains into the future. Yet Montreal is running hot: their 1.018 PDO suggests regression is coming. Minnesota's 1.007 sits closer to sustainable norms.

Minnesota's edge runs through Matt Boldy, who generates at 0.89 expected goals per 60 minutes and has converted 22 goals at a 13.7% shooting rate—suggesting skill beyond variance. Cole Caufield answers for Montreal at 0.97 xG/60 with 33 goals, but his 20.0% shooting percentage is unsustainably high and represents the upside Montreal needs to overcome its structural disadvantage.

Oliver Kapanen supplies Montreal's secondary threat at 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals and a 17.8% conversion rate. Robby Fabbri, Minnesota's 0.88 xG/60 option, is likely out and irrelevant to this matchup.

Defensive strength matters little here. Both teams rank poorly in high-danger goal rates and rebound conversion. Matt Kiersted's limitations on Minnesota's blue line roughly offset Mike Matheson's struggles for Montreal.

Minnesota's structural edge in shot quality gives them the theoretical advantage the market correctly reflects at 51% win probability. Montreal's firepower in Caufield and Kapanen can overcome a modest underlying deficit if shooting variance cooperates. The model calls it a coin flip. The evidence confirms it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 51%
51%
MIN
Model favorite
51%
49%
MIN50MTL

MIN by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.6–2.5 MTL; 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
MIN← edge
edge →MTL
52.0%48.0%
48.0%49.0%
2.552.41
2.402.62
2.042.24
1.931.96
1.0071.018

MIN holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MIN
4-3-3
-4 GD · 3d rest
MTL
6-3-1
+5 GD · 2d rest
1.007
MIN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MIN
Expected in goal
F. Gustavsson
3 days rest.833 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL
Expected in goal
S. Montembeault
2 days rest.853 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next