Backcheck
Recap · STL at WPG

Jets hold off the Blues

The Jets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.43–2.55 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 12, 1:52 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
STL
St. Louis Blues
1
Home
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.43Expected goals2.55
57% share for the better side
23Shot attempts (SOG)16
5High-danger chances4
69Corsi (all attempts)48
Score-adjusted: 64% / 36%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Winnipeg stole this one. The Jets beat St. Louis 3–1 despite ceding 57% of expected goals at 5v5, a margin that should have punished them — instead, E. Comrie's 0.957 save percentage flipped the script.

The Blues generated 3.43 xG to the Jets' 2.55, a gap that translates to roughly one goal's worth of missed opportunity. But St. Louis couldn't finish. They went 0-for-5 on high-danger chances and left five rebound chances unconverted. That wastefulness cost them the game.

Winnipeg's response was ruthless: 2-for-4 on high-danger chances (50%), clinical execution where it mattered most. The Jets also dominated special teams, scoring twice on seven power-play opportunities — both goals from higher-quality looks than the regular 5v5 play suggested they should have.

The turning point came in the third when Mark Scheifele fired a wrist shot from the wing, a moment that reflected the larger dynamic: the Blues had the territory and the chances, but Winnipeg had the killer instinct when it counted.

E. Comrie deserves the lion's share of credit. He stopped 2.4 goals above expected, including a flawless 5-for-5 performance against high-danger attempts. It was the kind of goaltending that swallows a team's process advantage and hands you a win you had no business taking.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL0 / 5 · 1.16 xG
WPG2 / 4 · 1.17 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL0 / 16 · 1.55 xG
WPG1 / 10 · 0.78 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL1 / 48 · 0.72 xG
WPG0 / 34 · 0.59 xG

STL went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.55 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
1 G · 3.43 xG · -2.4
WPG
3 G · 2.55 xG · +0.5
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. HoferSTL
+0.5
E. ComrieWPG
+2.4

STL finished -2.4 against expected, WPG +0.5 — E. Comrie (WPG) saved 2.4 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST0/25
SLAP1/9
SNAP0/8
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/0
OTHER0/24
WPG
WRIST1/14
SLAP1/8
SNAP1/9
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/14
STL
WPG
Off the rush
1 G on 24 · 2.45 xG
0 G on 19 · 1.53 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5 · 0.44 xG
0 G on 0 · 0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-25, WPG 1-for-14.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:33 TOI · +1
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
2 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:58 TOI · +1
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:05 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • WPG won despite being outplayed by xG (43%). Goaltending or finishing carried them.
  • E. Comrie (WPG) stopped 2.4 goals above expected.
  • WPG was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/4 on HD chances (50%).
  • STL couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • STL created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • STL underperformed xG by 2.4 — wasted quality chances.
  • E. Comrie (WPG) saved 2.4 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • E. Comrie was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
  • WPG power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 7 PP shots (0.56 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · STL at WPG · 8:00 PM ET

Blues at Jets: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 1:51 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
WPG
Model favorite
49%
51%
STL50WPG

WPG by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.52.5 WPG; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

STL← edge
edge →WPG
49.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
48.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.34xGF / 602.34
2.40xGA / 602.55
2.00Goals for / gm1.90
2.12Goals against / gm2.10
1.000PDO — luck, not skill0.998

The season numbers split 33 — no clear process edge — and PDO (1.000 vs 0.998) says STL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a STL 2.5 - 2.5 WPG game with the Jets at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

St. Louis arrives in worse recent form. The Blues are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10, and their underlying numbers offer no relief. At even strength, St. Louis sits at 49.0% xG% and 48.0% Corsi% against Winnipeg's 48.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%. Both teams' PDO readings—1.000 for the Blues and 0.998 for the Jets—suggest neither team is running far ahead of what their underlying play warrants.

J. Binnington faces a back-to-back assignment. St. Louis may turn to a backup or deploy Binnington fatigued.

Players to Watch

STL

  • Jimmy Snuggerud: 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
  • Dylan Holloway: 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goal, 10.8% shooting

WPG

  • Nino Niederreiter: 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting
  • Kyle Connor: 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting

St. Louis generates 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, identifying Jimmy Snuggerud as a defensive weak link. Winnipeg mirrors the 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate with Colin Miller as its vulnerability.

At 51% for Winnipeg, this remains a coin flip. Neither team has separated far enough to reveal a clear edge—just two rosters where marginal execution determines the outcome.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters