Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater

Breakdown · WPG at FLA

Jets hold off the Panthers

FinalSat, Jan 31

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 2 · FLA 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:24 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's 2-1 victory over Florida understated the Jets' dominance. The Panthers controlled 57% of shot attempts (28–21), but their chances were inferior — Winnipeg's shots were worth nearly triple the xG per attempt (0.079 vs. 0.036), translating to a 57-43 advantage in expected goals (2.75–2.04).

E. Comrie made the difference where it mattered most. The Jets' goaltender stopped 27 of 28 shots (0.964 SV%) and outperformed his expected save percentage by 1.04 goals, cashing in when Florida's opportunism failed. S. Bobrovsky answered in kind for the Panthers—19 saves on 21 shots (0.905 SV%), also overperforming by 0.75 goals—but couldn't overcome the quality gap.

The high-danger zone exposed the gap. Winnipeg converted 2 of 4 HD chances (50%), while Florida managed only 3 chances from that range. Mark Scheifele's wrist shot from the slot at 15:46 of the third period proved the dagger.

Florida arrived with volume but left without precision. The Panthers' underlying performance showed they were outmatched where it counts: Winnipeg's shot efficiency, Comrie's positioning, and clinical finishing in the dangerous areas combined to make 2-1 feel like a runaway.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 31

WPG

FLA

Jets hold off the Panthers

Chances 2.8 – 2.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

2.75

FLA

2.04

57% of the chances43%

The board read WPG 2, FLA 1. The chances read WPG 2.8, FLA 2.0.

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

Luck check

WPG

−0.8

goals above expected

WPG2.75 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA2.04 expected · 1 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 14:40FLAE. Luostarinen0–1
P3 08:34WPGC. Perfetti1–1
P3 15:46WPGM. Scheifele2–1

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

Where the shots came from

WPG

27 shots

Final

68 shots

FLA

41 shots

WPG FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGFLA

2 / 4

1.00 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.61 xG

0 / 11

1.38 xG

Medium

0 / 9

0.81 xG

0 / 20

0.37 xG

Low

1 / 44

0.62 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

B+

E. Comrie

+1.0

WPG · 27/28

B+

S. Bobrovsky

+0.8

FLA · 19/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Jets hold off the Panthers

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 9–13

14:40FLAE. Luostarinen(E. Rodrigues, G. Forsling)0–1

2ndshots 7–7no goals

3rdshots 5–8

08:34WPGC. Perfetti(G. Vilardi, A. Lowry)1–1
15:46WPGM. Scheifele(K. Connor, G. Nyquist)2–1

score reads WPG–FLA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.75

WPG chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.8

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.039

WPG puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

38.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.75Expected goals2.04

WPG 57% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal28

4High-danger chances3

35All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: WPG 40% · FLA 60%

Faceoffs · FLA won42%off29%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG2 / 4 · 1.00 xG

FLA0 / 3 · 0.61 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG0 / 11 · 1.38 xG

FLA0 / 9 · 0.81 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG0 / 20 · 0.37 xG

FLA1 / 44 · 0.62 xG

WPG went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.38 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

2 G · 2.75 xG · -0.8

FLA

1 G · 2.04 xG · -1.0

01234

WPG finished -0.8 against expected, FLA -1.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

WRIST2/4

SNAP0/6

SLAP0/9

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/8

FLA

WRIST0/27

SNAP0/6

SLAP0/1

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/15

WPG

FLA

Off the rush

1 G on 19

2.15 xG

1 G on 22

1.33 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.39 xG

0 G on 2

0.37 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 2-for-4, FLA 0-for-27.

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

E. Comrie

WPG · 27/28 · .964

+1.0

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium0/90.8+0.8

Low1/440.6-0.4

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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 19/21 · .905

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.0-1.0

Medium0/111.4+1.4

Low0/200.4+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

68 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

27 shots

Final

68 shots

FLA

41 shots

WPG FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

M. Scheifele

#55 · C · WPG

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 25:26 on ice · +1

G. Forsling

#42 · D · FLA

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:27 on ice · +1

K. Connor

#81 · L · WPG

0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 24:04 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 31

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:23 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

This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The Panthers own 53% win probability, and the model projects a 2.5–2.6 game. The rosters are nearly identical on paper, which is why the models can't choose.

The season 5v5 numbers prove it. Winnipeg produces 48.0% expected goals and controls 49.0% shot attempts; Florida counters with 49.0% xG and 52.0% Corsi. Winnipeg's PDO stands at 0.998 against Florida's 0.989—luck gaps too narrow to matter.

The single real edge belongs to Florida. The Panthers drive territorial control at 52.0% Corsi, meaning they will tilt the ice. It's not a mandate, but it's an advantage.

Goaltending will introduce chaos. D. Tarasov and C. Hellebuyck are both on back-to-backs, so either team could start a backup or ride a fatigued starter. Whoever plays fresher wins that pivot.

Winnipeg's offense runs through two engines. Nino Niederreiter generates 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes with 6 goals and 6 assists, including 3 high-danger chances—a reliable shot. Kyle Connor has logged more fortune: 25 goals and 30 assists from 0.83 xG/60, with a 13.0% shooting rate that suggests some regression is coming.

Florida counters with its own pair. Sam Bennett leads at 0.97 xG/60, with 18 goals, 19 assists, and 6 high-danger tallies—elite play. Brad Marchand trails at 0.93 xG/60, though his 19.5% shooting rate is arresting: it could hold, or it could collapse.

The gap between these rosters is marginal. If you're forced to pick, take the territorial edge: Florida controls more volume. But the models have this right—it's nearly even.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 53%

53%

FLA

Model favorite

47%

53%

WPG50FLA

FLA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.5–2.6 FLA; 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 →FLA

48.0%49.0%

49.0%52.0%

2.342.48

2.552.56

1.901.98

2.102.21

0.9980.989

FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.989) 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

-2 GD · 1d rest

FLA

6-4-0

-2 GD · 1d rest

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.989

FLA 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.
D. Tarasov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

back-to-back.917 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.

FLA

Expected in goal

D. Tarasov

back-to-back.839 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page