Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater

Breakdown · WPG at NJD

Jets hold off the Devils

FinalTue, Jan 27

The verdict · coin flip

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

WPG 4 · NJD 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:49 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 Devils controlled this game by the underlying numbers — 53% of shot attempts, 3.40 expected goals — yet lost 4-3. New Jersey's advantage never materialized, a gap written by goaltending and finishing.

The play was even where it mattered. Expected goals split 3.37–3.40, essentially tied. High-danger chances favored Winnipeg slightly, 5–4. The Devils generated more volume but less quality: 0.053 xG per shot versus Winnipeg's 0.069.

Connor Hellebuyck made the difference. He posted a 0.897 save percentage (26/29 saves), clinical and efficient. John Allen stumbled to 0.846 (22/26 saves), running 0.60 percentage points below expectation.

Winnipeg's rush game was lethal: 3 goals on 21 chances. The Devils matched that rate (3/26) but wasted their superior volume. They crashed the net effectively, generating 4 rebound opportunities, but converted none. New Jersey's power play was the game's only dominant advantage — 2 goals on 16 shots, 1.03 expected goals — yet even that couldn't bridge the gap.

The turning point came in the second period: Nico Hischier's tip-in from the slot at 18:14, pulling New Jersey to within a goal.

Three Stars

#86 J. Hughes (NJD) — 2A in 25:14
#55 M. Scheifele (WPG) — 1G, 1A in 20:35
#81 K. Connor (WPG) — 2A in 20:35

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 27

WPG

NJD

Jets hold off the Devils

Chances 3.4 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Jets took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

3.40

NJD

3.37

50% of the chances50%

The board read WPG 4, NJD 3. The chances read WPG 3.4, NJD 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

WPG

+0.6

goals above expected

WPG3.40 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

NJD3.37 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

P1 01:33WPGM. Scheifele1–0
P1 08:02NJDL. Hameenaho1–1
P2 03:23WPGG. Vilardi2–1
P2 07:51WPGC. Koepke3–1
P2 16:42WPGN. Niederreiter4–1
P2 19:24NJDJ. BrattPP4–2
P3 18:14NJDN. HischierPP4–3

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

WPG

38 shots

Final

79 shots

NJD

41 shots

WPG NJD GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGNJD

1 / 5

1.80 xG

High danger

1 / 4

0.95 xG

2 / 9

1.02 xG

Medium

2 / 18

1.93 xG

1 / 35

0.58 xG

Low

0 / 41

0.48 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 5, NJD 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

C. Hellebuyck

+0.4

WPG · 26/29

J. Allen

−0.6

NJD · 22/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Jets hold off the Devils

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 8–9

01:33WPGM. Scheifele(K. Connor, G. Vilardi)1–0
08:02NJDL. Hameenaho(A. Gritsyuk)1–1

2ndshots 14–5

03:23WPGG. Vilardi(M. Scheifele, K. Connor)2–1
07:51WPGC. Koepke(A. Iafallo, M. Barron)3–1
16:42WPGN. Niederreiter(V. Namestnikov, A. Lowry)4–1
19:24NJDJ. Brattpower play(J. Hughes, D. Hamilton)4–2

3rdshots 4–15

18:14NJDN. Hischierpower play(J. Bratt, J. Hughes)4–3

score reads WPG–NJD

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.40

WPG chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.034

WPG puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

43.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.40Expected goals3.37

WPG 50% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal29

5High-danger chances4

49All attempts (Corsi)63

Adjusted for score: WPG 40% · NJD 61%

Faceoffs · NJD won69%off21%neu63%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG1 / 5 · 1.80 xG

NJD1 / 4 · 0.95 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG2 / 9 · 1.02 xG

NJD2 / 18 · 1.93 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG1 / 35 · 0.58 xG

NJD0 / 41 · 0.48 xG

WPG went 2-for-9 from medium danger on 1.02 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

4 G · 3.40 xG · +0.6

NJD

3 G · 3.37 xG · -0.4

012345

WPG finished +0.6 against expected, NJD -0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

WRIST3/15

SNAP1/13

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/11

NJD

WRIST1/15

SNAP0/6

SLAP1/10

TIP IN1/6

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/2

OTHER0/22

WPG

NJD

Off the rush

3 G on 21

2.49 xG

3 G on 26

2.23 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.44 xG

0 G on 4

0.72 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 3-for-15, NJD 1-for-15. WPG 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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 26/29 · .897

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium2/181.9-0.1

Low0/410.5+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

J. Allen

NJD · 22/26 · .846

-0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.8+0.8

Medium2/91.0-1.0

Low1/350.6-0.4

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

38 shots

Final

79 shots

NJD

41 shots

WPG NJD GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, NJD 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

J. Hughes

#86 · C · NJD

0 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 25:14 on ice · -1

M. Scheifele

#55 · C · WPG

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:35 on ice · +1

K. Connor

#81 · L · WPG

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:35 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 27

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:47 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 2.4–2.6 goal spread with the Devils at 53% win probability — essentially a toss-up.

New Jersey comes in underwater at -11 goal differential over its last ten games, a worrying trend even as the advanced stats hint at better days ahead. The Devils' 50.0% expected goals share and 51.0% Corsi% both track the league's middle, but their 0.971 PDO suggests they're running cold and due for positive regression.

Winnipeg's numbers tell a different story: a 48.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi% indicate a team being outshot at even strength. The Jets' shooting luck has been better—Kyle Connor sits at 13.0%, meaningfully above league average—but their expected goals generation lags.

The matchup hinges on managing elite creators. Timo Meier leads New Jersey's offense with 1.08 xG/60 and has 13 goals, plus three that came on high-danger chances. Jack Hughes, at 0.88 xG/60, has posted 18 goals despite modest shot quality, a testament to his efficiency. Winnipeg's Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6 goals) and Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25 goals) generate similar underlying chances but have converted at different rates—Niederreiter at 8.6%, Connor at 13.0%—a gap that's unsustainable.

New Jersey's defensive weak link is Johnathan Kovacevic. Winnipeg's is Colin Miller. Both teams have struggled to generate secondary scoring: neither club has registered a goal from high-danger situations (HD goal rate at 0% for both) or off rebounds, meaning they're dependent on their top talent converting chances that come.

That dependency is precisely what makes this a true pick'em.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 53%

53%

NJD

Model favorite

47%

53%

WPG50NJD

NJD by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.4–2.6 NJD; 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 →NJD

48.0%50.0%

49.0%51.0%

2.342.45

2.552.50

1.901.66

2.102.23

0.9980.971

NJD holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.971) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

WPG

5-3-2

+3 GD · 2d rest

NJD

5-5-0

-11 GD · 2d rest

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.971

NJD PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Devils are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

2 days rest.867 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NJD

Expected in goal

J. Markstrom

2 days rest.833 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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

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

NJD

Timo Meier13G 15A

1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh

Jack Hughes18G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page