Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
Breakdown · MIN at EDM

Wild pull away from the Oilers

The verdict · stolen

The Wild stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.77–5.22 and won anyway.

MIN 7 · EDM 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:36 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 Oilers ran the numbers and lost anyway. Minnesota beat Edmonton 7–3 despite trailing in expected goals 3.77 to 5.22—a 58–42 split in Edmonton's favor at 5v5. The Oilers took 42 shot attempts to Minnesota's 29 and generated nine high-danger chances to three. The Wild simply finished theirs.

J. Wallstedt was the difference. The Minnesota goaltender stopped 39 of 42 shots (0.929 save percentage), running 2.22 goals better than expectation. Edmonton's goalies collapsed: T. Jarry recorded 15 saves on 20 shots (0.750 save percentage, -2.40 vs expected), while C. Ingram saved 7 of 9 (-0.83). Minnesota overperformed their expected goals by 3.23; Edmonton underperformed theirs by 2.22. When goaltending variance stretches like this, the numbers stop predicting wins.

Brock Faber's wrist shot from the high slot at 14:17 of the third period marked the turning point, but the structural damage ran deeper. Minnesota scored twice from low-danger spots Oilers goalies should have stopped. Edmonton was efficient off the rush—three goals on 39 chances—yet Minnesota was more lethal: five goals on 28. The Oilers crashed the net harder, generating 11 rebound opportunities and converting zero. Minnesota created eight and buried one.

The Three Stars reflected Minnesota's dominance:

  • B. Faber (MIN)—1G, 1A in 25:50
  • Q. Hughes (MIN)—1G, 1A in 25:14
  • J. Eriksson Ek (MIN)—1G, 1A in 17:01

Edmonton controlled possession. Minnesota controlled the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 31
MIN
7
EDM
3

Wild pull away from the Oilers

Chances 3.8 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.77
EDM
5.22
42% of the chances58%

The board read MIN 7, EDM 3. The chances read MIN 3.8, EDM 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+3.2
goals above expected
MIN3.77 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM5.22 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild scored 3.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:16EDML. Draisaitl0–1
  2. P1 06:15MINJ. Eriksson EkPP1–1
  3. P1 08:01EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins1–2
  4. P1 19:24MINK. KaprizovPP2–2
  5. P2 00:35MINM. Zuccarello3–2
  6. P2 12:29MINQ. Hughes4–2
  7. P2 15:40MINV. Tarasenko5–2
+3 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
46 shots
7
Final
112 shots
EDM
66 shots
3
MIN attackEDM attack
MIN EDM Goal
46
shots · 7 in
66
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINEDM
0 / 3
0.62 xG
High danger
1 / 9
1.97 xG
5 / 20
2.44 xG
Medium
1 / 17
2.15 xG
2 / 40
0.70 xG
Low
1 / 63
1.10 xG

High-danger looks: MIN 0 of 3, EDM 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Wallstedt
+2.2
MIN · 39/42
A
C. Ingram
+1.8
EDM · 7/9
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild pull away from the Oilers

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 13–10
  1. 03:16EDML. Draisaitl0–1
  2. 06:15MINJ. Eriksson Ekpower play(Q. Hughes, J. Wallstedt)1–1
  3. 08:01EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)1–2
  4. 19:24MINK. Kaprizovpower play(J. Eriksson Ek, M. Zuccarello)2–2
2ndshots 7–17
  1. 00:35MINM. Zuccarello(R. Hartman)3–2
  2. 12:29MINQ. Hughes(B. Faber)4–2
  3. 15:40MINV. Tarasenko(M. Foligno, D. Yurov)5–2
3rdshots 9–15
  1. 09:42MINT. Pitlick(Y. Trenin, V. Hinostroza)6–2
  2. 12:43EDMJ. Roslovic(D. Nurse, J. Samanski)6–3
  3. 14:17MINB. Faber(M. Boldy, J. Middleton)7–3

score reads MIN–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.77
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.077
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.77Expected goals5.22
EDM 58% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal42
3High-danger chances9
63All attempts (Corsi)89
Adjusted for score: MIN 38% · EDM 62%
Faceoffs · EDM won78%off53%neu35%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN0 / 3 · 0.62 xG
EDM1 / 9 · 1.97 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN5 / 20 · 2.44 xG
EDM1 / 17 · 2.15 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN2 / 40 · 0.70 xG
EDM1 / 63 · 1.10 xG

MIN went 5-for-20 from medium danger on 2.44 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
7 G · 3.77 xG · +3.2
EDM
3 G · 5.22 xG · -2.2
012345678

MIN finished +3.2 against expected, EDM -2.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
WRIST6/30
SLAP1/2
SNAP0/1
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/4
BAT0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/17
EDM
WRIST1/30
SLAP0/13
SNAP1/11
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/6
DEFLECTED1/1
BAT0/2
POKE0/1
OTHER0/23
MIN
EDM
Off the rush
5 G on 28
2.19 xG
3 G on 39
3.06 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 8
1.30 xG
0 G on 11
1.73 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 6-for-30, EDM 1-for-30. MIN scored 5 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
J. Wallstedt
MIN · 39/42 · .929
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/92.0+1.0
Medium1/172.1+1.1
Low1/631.1+0.1

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

T. Jarry
EDM · 15/20 · .750
-1.2
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium5/202.4-2.6
Low2/400.7-1.3

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

C. Ingram
EDM · 7/9 · .778
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium5/202.4-2.6
Low2/400.7-1.3

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

112 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MIN
46 shots
7
Final
112 shots
EDM
66 shots
3
MIN attackEDM attack
MIN EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, EDM 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. Faber
#7 · D · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 25:50 on ice · +3
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:14 on ice · +4
J. Eriksson Ek
#14 · C · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:01 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, 4:05 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 Minnesota 2.5 to 2.6-goal game, with Edmonton at 52 percent win probability. This is about as close to a coin flip as the numbers get.

Expected goals tell you why. Both teams sit at 52.0 percent xG share at five-on-five, meaning neither outfit has built a meaningful shot-quality advantage. Edmonton holds a slight edge in Corsis (50.0 percent vs. 48.0 percent), but that's not enough margin to matter when underlying quality is identical. What breaks the tie is luck.

Edmonton's PDO sits at 0.982—running cold. The Oilers are due for positive regression on the score-effects and goaltending fronts, which narrows a model line that looks tight already. Minnesota's PDO is 1.007, suggesting they're banking on continuing to outshoot their expected outcomes.

C. Ingram and F. Gustavsson both face back-to-back scheduling. Either could feature a backup start or arrive fatigued. That's a real variable when the underlying talent is this balanced.

Minnesota's attack hinges on Matt Boldy, who carries 0.89 expected goals per 60 minutes and has converted at a 13.7 percent rate (22 goals, 18 assists, 5 high-danger goals). Robby Fabbri sits at a similar 0.88 xG/60 but has managed just 2 goals and 3 assists (1 high-danger) on a 6.9 percent shooting percentage. That gap between talent and results is noise waiting to normalize.

Edmonton counters with Zach Hyman at 1.23 xG/60, a level of shot quality that ranks elite. Hyman carries 14 goals and 13 assists but only 1 high-danger goal, suggesting he's beaten his xG on overall execution. Connor McDavid remains the constant: 0.92 xG/60, 25 goals, 33 assists, 5 high-danger goals, 13.7 percent shooting. His direct impact is obvious.

Both teams sit at 0 percent in high-danger and rebound-goal rates. Minnesota's defensive weak link is Matt Kiersted; Edmonton's is Jake Walman. Corsi and xG alignment means this truly is a toss-up. Model probability—52 percent Edmonton—is barely an edge. Take that as a warning: whichever team executes cleaner over 60 minutes wins. That's not a prediction. That's the data saying it genuinely doesn't know.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 52%
52%
EDM
Model favorite
48%
52%
MIN50EDM

EDM by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.5–2.6 EDM; 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
MIN← edge
edge →EDM
52.0%52.0%
48.0%50.0%
2.552.64
2.402.47
2.042.13
1.932.29
1.0070.982

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 0.982) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MIN
5-3-2
-1 GD · 1d rest
EDM
6-3-1
+12 GD · 1d rest
1.007
MIN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • C. Ingram is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • F. Gustavsson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MIN
Expected in goal
F. Gustavsson
back-to-back.967 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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.

EDM
Expected in goal
C. Ingram
back-to-back.857 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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
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
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Keep going

Where to next