Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · COL at OTT

Senators run the Avalanche off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

COL 2 · OTT 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:11 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

Ottawa's 5-2 rout was built on dominance at every measurable level. At 5v5, the Senators held 66% of expected goals (5.08–2.67), controlled 56% of shot attempts (23–18), and generated far deadlier chances: 0.113 xG per shot against Colorado's 0.056.

The high-danger sequence was even starker. Ottawa created 10 dangerous looks to Colorado's 3, a gap that rendered the scoreline almost predictable. Four of Ottawa's five goals came off the rush; their defensive shape never wavered.

Tim Stützle's wrist shot from the slot at 18:53 of the third illustrated this imbalance perfectly. It came when the Senators were already in control and merely confirmed what the data had been saying all night.

Colorado's one bright spot was goaltending. M. Blackwood stopped 18 of 21 shots (0.857 SV%), saving 2.08 goals above expected—an exceptional effort that masked how thoroughly the Avalanche were outmatched. J. Reimer, facing higher-quality chances, posted 16 of 18 (0.889 SV%).

A. Zub paced Ottawa's defense with two assists across 21:55 of ice time, the kind of quiet control that only surfaces when you examine outlet passes and slot coverage. T. Stützle finished 1G, 1A in 18:28. J. Sanderson added an assist in 24:43, anchoring the backend.

This was dominance confirmed by every layer of analysis—a game where Ottawa's advantages compounded so thoroughly that elite goaltending could not level the field.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 28
COL
2
OTT
5

Senators run the Avalanche off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
2.67
OTT
5.08
34% of the chances66%

The board read COL 2, OTT 5. The chances read COL 2.7, OTT 5.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−0.1
goals above expected
OTT5.08 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
COL2.67 expected · 2 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. P2 03:21OTTN. Cousins0–1
  2. P2 14:05COLP. Kelly1–1
  3. P2 14:22OTTR. Greig1–2
  4. P3 02:06OTTC. Giroux1–3
  5. P3 03:30COLV. Nichushkin2–3
  6. P3 17:44OTTB. TkachukEN2–4
  7. P3 18:53OTTT. StützleEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
37 shots
2
Final
70 shots
OTT
33 shots
5
COL attackOTT attack
COL OTT Goal
37
shots · 2 in
33
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLOTT
0 / 3
0.79 xG
High danger
3 / 10
3.49 xG
1 / 13
1.37 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.33 xG
1 / 32
0.51 xG
Low
1 / 24
0.27 xG

The Avalanche went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
M. Blackwood
+2.1
COL · 18/21
B
J. Reimer
+0.7
OTT · 16/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators run the Avalanche 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 4–9no goals
    2ndshots 4–6
    1. 03:21OTTN. Cousins(A. Zub, T. Stützle)0–1
    2. 14:05COLP. Kelly(B. Nelson, K. Middleton)1–1
    3. 14:22OTTR. Greig(T. Kleven, J. Spence)1–2
    3rdshots 10–8
    1. 02:06OTTC. Giroux(D. Batherson, N. Jensen)1–3
    2. 03:30COLV. Nichushkin(J. Drury)2–3
    3. 17:44OTTB. Tkachukempty net(J. Sanderson)2–4
    4. 18:53OTTT. Stützleempty net(T. Chabot, A. Zub)2–5

    score reads COL–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.08
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.069
    OTT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.67Expected goals5.08
    OTT 66% of the chance quality
    18Shots on goal23
    3High-danger chances10
    48All attempts (Corsi)45
    Adjusted for score: COL 55% · OTT 45%
    Faceoffs · OTT won42%off36%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    COL0 / 3 · 0.79 xG
    OTT3 / 10 · 3.49 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    COL1 / 13 · 1.37 xG
    OTT1 / 11 · 1.33 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    COL1 / 32 · 0.51 xG
    OTT1 / 24 · 0.27 xG

    COL went 0-for-3 from high danger on 0.79 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    COL
    2 G · 2.67 xG · -0.7
    OTT
    5 G · 5.08 xG · -0.1
    0123456

    COL finished -0.7 against expected, OTT -0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    COL
    WRIST0/24
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND1/4
    SNAP1/3
    TIP IN0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/11
    OTT
    WRIST4/19
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND1/3
    SNAP0/3
    TIP IN0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/12
    COL
    OTT
    Off the rush
    1 G on 21
    1.43 xG
    4 G on 20
    3.51 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.78 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.23 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 0-for-24, OTT 4-for-19. OTT scored 4 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
    M. Blackwood
    COL · 18/21 · .857
    +2.1
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/103.5+0.5
    Medium1/111.3+0.3
    Low1/240.3-0.7

    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

    J. Reimer
    OTT · 16/18 · .889
    +0.7
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.8+0.8
    Medium1/131.4+0.4
    Low1/320.5-0.5

    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

    70 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    COL
    37 shots
    2
    Final
    70 shots
    OTT
    33 shots
    5
    COL attackOTT attack
    COL OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — COL left, OTT 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
    A. Zub
    #2 · D · OTT
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:55 on ice · +3
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:28 on ice · +3
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:43 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Jan 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:56 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 sees a coin flip: 2.6 expected goals each, Senators at 50% win probability. The underlying numbers bear it out.

    Colorado and Ottawa post nearly identical five-on-five profiles. The Avalanche lead in expected goals percentage at 57.0% versus 56.0%, and their Corsi dominance mirrors that gap—57.0% to 53.0%. This territorial control translates to more offensive chances.

    But Colorado's 1.021 PDO—actual goals relative to expected—is running hot; Ottawa sits at 0.993, closer to equilibrium. Expect some natural correction if the Avalanche don't sustain this conversion luck.

    The forward matchups reveal where the variance sits. Artturi Lehkonen generates 1.11 expected goals per 60 minutes and converts at 14.9%, yielding 18 goals and six high-danger tallies. Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60) generates at the same rate with 7 goals, but his 4.9% conversion rate sits well below expectation, suggesting upside.

    Ottawa leans on Brady Tkachuk (1.19 xG/60), the best chance generator here, at 7.5% shooting. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60) contributes at lower volume but 9.5% efficiency.

    The defensive liabilities cut both ways. Nazem Kadri anchors Colorado's weaker coverage; Nick Jensen fills that role for Ottawa. Neither team has converted high-danger or rebound situations at scale (both 0%), which compresses variance and steers toward a tight, possession-driven contest.

    Everything converges toward parity. This is a true pick'em.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 50%
    50%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    COL50OTT

    OTT by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score COL 2.6–2.6 OTT; 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
    COL← edge
    edge →OTT
    57.0%56.0%
    57.0%53.0%
    3.032.66
    2.302.12
    2.632.18
    1.561.99
    1.0210.993

    COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 0.993) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    COL
    4-4-2
    +3 GD · 3d rest
    OTT
    4-4-2
    +0 GD · 3d rest
    1.021
    COL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    COL
    Expected in goal
    M. Blackwood
    3 days rest.970 last start
    Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    OTT
    Expected in goal
    M. Sogaard
    3 days rest.950 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
    COL
    Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
    1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
    Ross Colton7G 15A
    1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next