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

Panthers run the Wild off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

FLA 4 · MIN 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:07 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

The Panthers won 4–3 in overtime, and the underlying metrics justified it. Florida controlled 61% of expected goals at 5v5 (4.06–2.59), a substantial edge that reflected their dominance in shot quality.

The gap came down to proximity. Florida averaged 0.071 expected goals per shot versus Minnesota's 0.054—a meaningful difference in where each team worked. In high-danger chances, that split the work: Florida converted at 50% on six chances while Minnesota scored on three.

On rush chances, Minnesota was efficient (2 goals on 20 attempts) but Florida's volume made the difference (2 goals on 33 attempts). Both power plays were strong—Minnesota scored twice on 17 shots with 1.07 xG, Florida twice on 19 shots with 1.59 xG—but Florida's lethal efficiency added up.

F. Gustavsson made 30 of 34 saves (0.882 SV%) to S. Bobrovsky's 18 of 21 (0.857 SV%). The Wild's goalie played well enough that his team could have stolen the game. Brad Marchand's overtime winner at 03:00 sealed it, a goal that confirmed what the underlying numbers had been saying all night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 24
FLA
4
MIN
3

Panthers run the Wild off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.1 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
4.06
MIN
2.59
61% of the chances39%

The board read FLA 4, MIN 3. The chances read FLA 4.1, MIN 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
−0.1
goals above expected
FLA4.06 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN2.59 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 06:44FLAS. Reinhart1–0
  2. P1 09:17MINK. KaprizovPP1–1
  3. P1 18:20FLAB. MarchandPP2–1
  4. P2 04:33MINJ. Eriksson EkPP2–2
  5. P3 12:09MINM. BoldySH2–3
  6. P3 13:11FLAS. BennettPP3–3
  7. OT 03:00FLAB. Marchand4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
47 shots
4
Final
76 shots
MIN
29 shots
3
FLA attackMIN attack
FLA MIN Goal
47
shots · 4 in
29
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLAMIN
3 / 6
1.51 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.75 xG
0 / 21
2.02 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.54 xG
1 / 30
0.53 xG
Low
1 / 31
0.31 xG

The Panthers buried 3 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
F. Gustavsson
+0.1
MIN · 30/34
D
S. Bobrovsky
−0.4
FLA · 18/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers run the Wild 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 10–5
  1. 06:44FLAS. Reinhart(A. Ekblad, C. Verhaeghe)1–0
  2. 09:17MINK. Kaprizovpower play(M. Boldy, M. Zuccarello)1–1
  3. 18:20FLAB. Marchandpower play(S. Reinhart, M. Tkachuk)2–1
2ndshots 15–10
  1. 04:33MINJ. Eriksson Ekpower play(K. Kaprizov, Q. Hughes)2–2
3rdshots 8–6
  1. 12:09MINM. Boldyshorthanded2–3
  2. 13:11FLAS. Bennettpower play(M. Tkachuk, B. Marchand)3–3
OTshots 1–0
  1. 03:00FLAB. Marchand(C. Verhaeghe)4–3

score reads FLA–MIN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.06
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.008
FLA puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
54.3%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.06Expected goals2.59
FLA 61% of the chance quality
34Shots on goal21
6High-danger chances3
57All attempts (Corsi)48
Adjusted for score: FLA 54% · MIN 46%
Faceoffs · MIN won47%off36%neu52%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA3 / 6 · 1.51 xG
MIN1 / 3 · 0.75 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA0 / 21 · 2.02 xG
MIN1 / 14 · 1.54 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA1 / 30 · 0.53 xG
MIN1 / 31 · 0.31 xG

FLA went 0-for-21 from medium danger on 2.02 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
4 G · 4.06 xG · -0.1
MIN
3 G · 2.59 xG · +0.4
012345

FLA finished -0.1 against expected, MIN +0.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST2/27
DEFLECTED0/6
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND1/2
SNAP1/4
SLAP0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/10
MIN
WRIST3/18
DEFLECTED0/3
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/0
SLAP0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/19
FLA
MIN
Off the rush
2 G on 33
2.79 xG
2 G on 20
2.05 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.64 xG
1 G on 2
0.29 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 2-for-27, MIN 3-for-18. FLA 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
S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 18/21 · .857
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.8-0.3
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low1/310.3-0.7

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

F. Gustavsson
MIN · 30/34 · .882
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.5-1.5
Medium0/212.0+2.0
Low1/300.5-0.5

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
47 shots
4
Final
76 shots
MIN
29 shots
3
FLA attackMIN attack
FLA MIN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, MIN 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
B. Marchand
#63 · L · FLA
2 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 18:12 on ice
S. Reinhart
#13 · C · FLA
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:22 on ice
K. Kaprizov
#97 · L · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 25:32 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:26 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 FLA 2.4 - 2.7 MIN game with Minnesota at 54% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Minnesota owns the underlying play at 5v5: 52.0% expected goals versus Florida's 49.0%. The Panthers offset that by driving possession. Florida controls territory at 52.0% Corsi compared to Minnesota's 48.0%, meaning the Panthers will dictate where pucks get played. Neither team benefits from shooting luck—Florida's PDO sits at 0.989, Minnesota's at 1.007—so this gap comes down to play, not variance.

The matchup turns on four players. Sam Bennett anchors Florida's attack at 0.97 expected goals per 60 with 18 goals and 19 assists, of which 6 are hard-chance goals on a 13.1% shooting clip. Brad Marchand operates at 0.93 xG/60 with 17 goals, 9 assists, 3 hard-chance goals, and a notably hot 19.5% shooting rate. Minnesota counters with Matt Boldy at 0.89 xG/60, 22 goals, 18 assists, and 5 hard-chance goals at 13.7%. Robby Fabbri is quieter on the scoresheet—0.88 xG/60, 2 goals, 3 assists—but his 1 hard-chance goal at 6.9% suggests he still represents danger in confined spaces.

The statistics reveal similar dysfunction in tight areas. Florida and Minnesota both register 0% in rebound goals, indicating that secondary chances disappear cleanly rather than become avalanches. This won't be a game about scrambling for loose pucks. It's about shot quality and speed in transition.

Defensively, liabilities emerge on both sides. For Florida, Brad Marchand represents a defensive weak link. For Minnesota, Matt Kiersted bears a heavy load. If Bennett or Marchand can sustain possession against Kiersted's side, Florida finds an avenue to pressure and generate scoring from the dangerous areas where they've been most efficient. If Minnesota can convert its 52.0% xG advantage into consistent pressure, the Wild find openings around Marchand.

This is about which team trusts its underlying play. Minnesota has it slightly better in expected goals. Florida has it slightly better in possession. One of those edges—or neither—will hold up for 60 minutes. That's a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 54%
54%
MIN
Model favorite
46%
54%
FLA50MIN

MIN by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 2.4–2.7 MIN; 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 →MIN
49.0%52.0%
52.0%48.0%
2.482.55
2.562.40
1.982.04
2.211.93
0.9891.007

MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 1.007) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
FLA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
MIN
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.007
MIN 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 49.0%.
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
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
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
Keep going

Where to next