Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Tue, Jan 27 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at MIN

Wild edge the Blackhawks in a shootout

Final / OTTue, Jan 27
CHIChicago Blackhawks3MINMinnesota Wild4
The verdict · stolen

The Wild stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.36–3.65 and won anyway.

CHI 3 · MIN 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:54 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

Minnesota won despite Chicago's superior numbers. The Blackhawks held a 4.36–3.65 expected-goals edge, a 54–46 split that should have favored them. But J. Wallstedt outperformed his save expectation by 1.36 goals. S. Knight outperformed his by 0.65. Kirill Kaprizov's shootout wrist shot from the high slot was the formality.

Minnesota held just 42% of shot attempts (23–32 on goal), but Chicago's setup was cleaner: seven high-danger chances to five. On the rush, both teams scored twice—Chicago from 28 chances, Minnesota from 32. Chicago attacked the paint effectively: five offensive rebounds, one converted.

That work couldn't overcome the goaltending gap. When expected goals favor one team and another still wins, net is where the story lives. Two saves above expectation turned the result.

J. Eriksson Ek led Minnesota with one goal and one assist in 18:40. Q. Hughes added an assist in 27:49. C. Bedard recorded an assist in 23:50 but couldn't keep Chicago even.

The numbers confirm it: superior underlying metrics didn't matter. Goaltending did.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 27
CHI
3
MIN
4

Wild edge the Blackhawks in a shootout

Chances 4.4 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
4.36
MIN
3.65
54% of the chances46%

The board read CHI 3, MIN 4. The chances read CHI 4.4, MIN 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+0.3
goals above expected
MIN3.65 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI4.36 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 01:19CHIT. Teravainen1–0
  2. P1 15:14CHIR. Donato2–0
  3. P2 05:54CHII. Mikheyev3–0
  4. P2 12:33MINY. Trenin3–1
  5. P3 03:57MINJ. Eriksson Ek3–2
  6. P3 17:58MINJ. SpurgeonPP3–3
  7. SO 00:00MINK. KaprizovPP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
46 shots
3
Final
90 shots
MIN
44 shots
4
CHI attackMIN attack
CHI MIN Goal
46
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIMIN
1 / 7
1.72 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.22 xG
2 / 18
2.08 xG
Medium
2 / 18
2.02 xG
0 / 36
0.57 xG
Low
0 / 24
0.41 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 1 of 7, MIN 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Wallstedt
+1.4
MIN · 29/32
B
S. Knight
+0.7
CHI · 20/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild edge the Blackhawks 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 14–8
  1. 01:19CHIT. Teravainen(C. Bedard, L. Crevier)1–0
  2. 15:14CHIR. Donato2–0
2ndshots 6–7
  1. 05:54CHII. Mikheyev(A. Vlasic, J. Dickinson)3–0
  2. 12:33MINY. Trenin(D. Hunt)3–1
3rdshots 7–6
  1. 03:57MINJ. Eriksson Ek(M. Johansson, Q. Hughes)3–2
  2. 17:58MINJ. Spurgeonpower play(J. Eriksson Ek, M. Boldy)3–3
OTshots 5–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00MINK. Kaprizovpower play3–3

    score reads CHI–MIN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.65
    MIN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.015
    MIN puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    43.5%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.36Expected goals3.65
    CHI 54% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal23
    7High-danger chances5
    61All attempts (Corsi)47
    Adjusted for score: CHI 52% · MIN 48%
    Faceoffs · MIN won26%off42%neu55%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI1 / 7 · 1.72 xG
    MIN1 / 5 · 1.22 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI2 / 18 · 2.08 xG
    MIN2 / 18 · 2.02 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI0 / 36 · 0.57 xG
    MIN0 / 24 · 0.41 xG

    CHI went 1-for-7 from high danger on 1.72 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    3 G · 4.36 xG · -1.4
    MIN
    4 G · 3.65 xG · +0.3
    012345

    CHI finished -1.4 against expected, MIN +0.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    WRIST1/29
    BACKHAND1/5
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP1/6
    TIP IN0/1
    OTHER0/17
    MIN
    WRIST1/25
    BACKHAND1/4
    SNAP1/6
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/4
    OTHER0/6
    CHI
    MIN
    Off the rush
    2 G on 28
    2.41 xG
    2 G on 32
    3.25 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    1.05 xG
    1 G on 1
    0.15 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-29, MIN 1-for-25. CHI 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. Knight
    CHI · 20/23 · .870
    +0.7
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.2+0.2
    Medium2/182.0+0.0
    Low0/240.4+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

    J. Wallstedt
    MIN · 29/32 · .906
    +1.4
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.7+0.7
    Medium2/182.1+0.1
    Low0/360.6+0.6

    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

    90 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    46 shots
    3
    Final
    90 shots
    MIN
    44 shots
    4
    CHI attackMIN attack
    CHI MIN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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
    J. Eriksson Ek
    #14 · C · MIN
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:40 on ice · +2
    Q. Hughes
    #43 · D · MIN
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 27:49 on ice · -2
    C. Bedard
    #98 · C · CHI
    0 G · 1 A · 8 SOG · 23:50 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, 2:50 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 CHI 2.3-2.9 MIN game with the Wild at 60% win probability.

    Minnesota's advantage is written in the underlying numbers. At 5v5, the Wild generate 52.0% of expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%—a ten-point margin in volume that persists across the season. Corsi tells the same story: Minnesota 48.0%, Chicago 46.0%. The Blackhawks' 0.996 PDO is inflating their results relative to process; Minnesota's 1.007 suggests they're slightly outperforming expected outcomes but within sustainable range.

    Both teams enter in recent freefall. Chicago has been outscored by 7 over their last 10 games. Minnesota's -6 over the same stretch shows identical defensive erosion. For Minnesota, that recent slump masks underlying dominance. For Chicago, it confirms what the underlying numbers already say: they're being out-prepared.

    The goaltending angle introduces one lever of uncertainty. S. Knight is on a back-to-back, which typically signals either a backup starter or a tired frontman. That's a marginal Minnesota edge in a game already tilted their way.

    Chicago's offense rests on Tyler Bertuzzi, who carries 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 15 assists. His 7 high-danger opportunities and 18.0% shooting rate make him the engine. Connor Bedard provides secondary thrust at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals and 27 assists, though his 11.8% shooting rate suggests he's generating chances without always burying them.

    Minnesota counters with Matt Boldy at 0.89 xG/60, carrying 22 goals and 18 assists with 5 high-danger goals on a pristine 13.7% shooting rate. He's finishing at an elite clip in elite volume. Robby Fabbri, if active, would add 0.88 xG/60, but he's marked likely out—the depth thins meaningfully without him.

    The 60% Minnesota lean understates the edge. Chicago is out-shot in both actual and expected metrics; their -7 recent differential isn't variance, it's process disadvantage catching up. Anton Frondell represents Chicago's defensive weak link, and Minnesota will find him repeatedly. The Wild's dominance at even strength and Boldy's clinical finishing should prevail.

    The only question is whether S. Knight steals a night.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    MIN 60%
    60%
    MIN
    Model favorite
    40%
    60%
    CHI50MIN

    MIN by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.9 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
    CHI← edge
    edge →MIN
    42.0%52.0%
    46.0%48.0%
    2.172.55
    2.942.40
    1.842.04
    2.411.93
    0.9961.007

    MIN holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.007) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CHI
    4-5-1
    -7 GD · 1d rest
    MIN
    4-4-2
    -6 GD · 2d rest
    0.996
    CHI 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 42.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Wild are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Blackhawks are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    back-to-back.833 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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.

    MIN
    Expected in goal
    F. Gustavsson
    2 days rest.882 last start
    Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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

    Back to the front page