Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · FLA at WPG

Panthers edge the Jets in a shootout

The verdict · stolen

The Panthers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.32–2.55 and won anyway.

FLA 2 · WPG 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:07 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

Winnipeg generated the better game — expected goals favored the Jets, 2.55–2.32 — yet lost 2–1. That gap isn't statistical noise. It's the kind of variance that turns underlying dominance into an empty scoreboard.

The Jets commanded the quality chances, holding a 3–2 edge in high-danger opportunities. Shot attempts were near-even (18–20 for Florida), but Winnipeg's expected-goal output suggested they should have won regulation. They underperformed their xG by 1.55 goals instead — excellence in chance creation, failure in finish.

D. Tarasov stopped them. The Panthers goaltender posted 1.55 goals above expected, converting a winnable game into a Florida escape. C. Hellebuyck matched him with a 0.950 save percentage and +1.32 against expected, proving both goalies played the kind of hockey that makes the scoreboard lie.

The shootout ended the pretense. Sam Reinhart's conversion was the kind of moment underlying metrics never predict — but one that separates a close game into a Panthers win. Winnipeg's loss wasn't being outplayed; it was squandering the chances they earned.

Dominance without execution still loses.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 22
FLA
2
WPG
1

Panthers edge the Jets in a shootout

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

Dead even on chances. The Panthers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
2.32
WPG
2.55
48% of the chances52%

The board read FLA 2, WPG 1. The chances read FLA 2.3, WPG 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
−0.3
goals above expected
FLA2.32 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG2.55 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 1.6 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 18:49FLAS. Bennett1–0
  2. P3 05:24WPGC. Perfetti1–1
  3. SO 00:00FLAA. LundellPP1–1
  4. SO 00:00FLAS. ReinhartPP1–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
39 shots
3
Final
74 shots
WPG
35 shots
1
FLA attackWPG attack
FLA WPG Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

39
shots · 3 in
35
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLAWPG
0 / 3
0.76 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.45 xG
1 / 9
0.91 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.66 xG
0 / 35
0.66 xG
Low
0 / 31
0.44 xG

High-danger looks: FLA 0 of 3, WPG 1 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Tarasov
+1.6
FLA · 17/18
B+
C. Hellebuyck
+1.3
WPG · 19/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers edge the Jets in a shootout

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 6–5no goals
    2ndshots 7–5
    1. 18:49FLAS. Bennett(M. Tkachuk)1–0
    3rdshots 5–7
    1. 05:24WPGC. Perfetti(J. Toews)1–1
    OTshots 2–1no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00FLAA. Lundellpower play1–1
      2. 00:00FLAS. Reinhartpower play1–1

      score reads FLA–WPG

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.32
      FLA chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.3
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.000
      FLA puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      50.0%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.32Expected goals2.55
      WPG 52% of the chance quality
      20Shots on goal18
      3High-danger chances2
      47All attempts (Corsi)47
      Adjusted for score: FLA 50% · WPG 50%
      Faceoffs · WPG won50%off56%neu57%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      FLA0 / 3 · 0.76 xG
      WPG1 / 2 · 0.45 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      FLA1 / 9 · 0.91 xG
      WPG0 / 14 · 1.66 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      FLA0 / 35 · 0.66 xG
      WPG0 / 31 · 0.44 xG

      WPG went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.66 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      FLA
      2 G · 2.32 xG · -0.3
      WPG
      1 G · 2.55 xG · -1.6
      0123

      FLA finished -0.3 against expected, WPG -1.6.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      FLA
      WRIST0/19
      SLAP1/5
      BACKHAND0/4
      SNAP0/5
      TIP IN0/4
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/10
      WPG
      WRIST0/16
      SLAP0/5
      BACKHAND1/5
      SNAP0/3
      TIP IN0/3
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/14
      FLA
      WPG
      Off the rush
      1 G on 22
      1.92 xG
      1 G on 22
      2.14 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 1
      0.13 xG
      0 G on 2
      0.26 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-19, WPG 0-for-16.

      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
      D. Tarasov
      FLA · 17/18 · .944
      +1.6
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/20.5-0.6
      Medium0/141.7+1.7
      Low0/310.4+0.4

      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

      C. Hellebuyck
      WPG · 19/20 · .950
      +1.3
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.8+0.8
      Medium1/90.9-0.1
      Low0/350.7+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

      74 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      FLA
      39 shots
      3
      Final
      74 shots
      WPG
      35 shots
      1
      FLA attackWPG attack
      FLA WPG Goal

      Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

      Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, WPG 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
      S. Bennett
      #9 · C · FLA
      1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 21:42 on ice · +1
      M. Tkachuk
      #19 · L · FLA
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:31 on ice · +1
      J. Toews
      #19 · C · WPG
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:59 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Thu, Jan 22
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:05 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 can't split this one. Florida projects at 2.5–2.6 goals, Winnipeg sits at 51% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The advanced metrics explain why.

      Both teams cluster near league average at five-on-five. Florida edges the possession battle: 52.0% Corsi, 49.0% expected goals. Winnipeg trails slightly at 49.0% Corsi and 48.0% xG%. Incremental differences only. The real separation lies elsewhere.

      Florida's form is the first alarm. The Panthers are underwater at −17 goal differential over their last 10 games—recent results lagging the underlying play. That drag matters in a toss-up. Their PDO of 0.989 hints at variance working against them; they're due for positive regression if they stay close.

      Winnipeg's PDO of 0.998 sits nearly perfectly neutral, a sign of sustainable play. The Jets don't have Florida's skid, but they're not pulling away either.

      Rest becomes the tiebreaker. The Jets arrive on one day of rest while Florida comes on three days—a meaningful edge in a game this tight. Watch whether E. Comrie starts on the back-to-back or if Winnipeg eases the load with a backup. That decision ripples through the matchup.

      Player quality edges to Florida. Sam Bennett is central to the offense at 0.97 expected goals per 60 with 18 goals, 19 assists, and a 13.1% conversion rate. Brad Marchand adds a secondary threat at 0.93 xG/60, though his 19.5% shooting rate won't sustain. Both carry outsized weight on depth scoring.

      Winnipeg counters with Kyle Connor—25 goals, 30 assists, but only 0.83 xG/60, meaning he's performing slightly above his chances. Nino Niederreiter follows at 0.87 xG/60 with six goals. Neither generates chances at Bennett's clip, pointing to a real offensive edge for Florida.

      But hockey doesn't rest, and neither team dominates at five-on-five. Florida's 52.0% Corsi suggests territorial control, yet underlying metrics don't match recent results. Winnipeg's steadier profile and fresh legs might exploit that gap.

      This is genuinely a coin flip. The model knows it. So should you.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      WPG 51%
      51%
      WPG
      Model favorite
      49%
      51%
      FLA50WPG

      WPG by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 2.5–2.6 WPG; 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
      FLA← edge
      edge →WPG
      49.0%48.0%
      52.0%49.0%
      2.482.34
      2.562.55
      1.981.90
      2.212.10
      0.9890.998

      FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      FLA
      4-5-1
      -17 GD · 3d rest
      WPG
      5-3-2
      +5 GD · 1d rest
      0.989
      FLA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.998
      WPG PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Things to watch
      • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • E. Comrie is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Panthers are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
      • The Panthers have 2 more days of rest.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      FLA
      Expected in goal
      S. Bobrovsky
      3 days rest.889 last start
      Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      WPG
      Expected in goal
      E. Comrie
      back-to-back.957 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.

      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
      FLA
      Sam Bennett18G 19A
      0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
      Brad Marchand17G 9A
      0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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
      Keep going

      Where to next