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

Wild run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

MTL 3 · MIN 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:43 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's dominance on the underlying numbers—63% of expected goals—barely translated to a close finish. The Wild won 4-3 in overtime, but Montreal's 1.05-goal overperformance of their xG outpaced Minnesota's 0.72-goal edge, which is why the scoreboard stayed so tight despite the gap in shot quality.

The Wild controlled the game by nearly every measure. They held 55% of shot attempts (24–20), generating 3.28 expected goals to Montreal's 1.95. The high-danger chances were dead even at 4-4, but Montreal executed at 50% on those looks—2 goals from 4 chances—while Minnesota's advantage came from elsewhere.

Minnesota was lethal on the rush, converting 4 goals on 40 rush chances. Montreal countered with 3 goals on 21 attempts, a higher-percentage rate that helped them stay in a game they had no business winning on the xG. Montreal generated higher-quality chances than their shot total suggests, and F. Gustavsson (MIN) undermined his team's dominance by allowing 1.0 more goals than expected on a lighter workload.

The turning point came at 03:38 of overtime: Kirill Kaprizov's snap shot from the top of the circles.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Feb 2
MTL
3
MIN
4

Wild run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.9 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
1.95
MIN
3.28
37% of the chances63%

The board read MTL 3, MIN 4. The chances read MTL 1.9, MIN 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+0.7
goals above expected
MIN3.28 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL1.95 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 00:38MINJ. Eriksson Ek0–1
  2. P1 15:48MINK. Kaprizov0–2
  3. P1 19:08MTLB. Gallagher1–2
  4. P2 19:43MTLI. Demidov2–2
  5. P3 00:12MTLK. Dach3–2
  6. P3 07:05MINB. Faber3–3
  7. OT 03:38MINK. KaprizovPP3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
29 shots
3
Final
79 shots
MIN
50 shots
4
MTL attackMIN attack
MTL MIN Goal
29
shots · 3 in
50
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLMIN
2 / 4
0.88 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.97 xG
1 / 7
0.60 xG
Medium
3 / 17
1.68 xG
0 / 34
0.47 xG
Low
1 / 44
0.62 xG

High-danger looks: MTL 2 of 4, MIN 0 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
J. Dobes
−0.7
MTL · 20/24
D-
F. Gustavsson
−1.1
MIN · 17/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild run the Canadiens 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 5–6
  1. 00:38MINJ. Eriksson Ek(M. Johansson, M. Boldy)0–1
  2. 15:48MINK. Kaprizov(Q. Hughes, R. Hartman)0–2
  3. 19:08MTLB. Gallagher(P. Danault, M. Matheson)1–2
2ndshots 9–7
  1. 19:43MTLI. Demidov(L. Hutson, A. Carrier)2–2
3rdshots 5–9
  1. 00:12MTLK. Dach(N. Suzuki, N. Dobson)3–2
  2. 07:05MINB. Faber(M. Johansson, Q. Hughes)3–3
OTshots 1–2
  1. 03:38MINK. Kaprizovpower play(Q. Hughes, M. Boldy)3–4

score reads MTL–MIN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.28
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.995
MIN puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
59.1%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.95Expected goals3.28
MIN 63% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal24
4High-danger chances4
45All attempts (Corsi)65
Adjusted for score: MTL 43% · MIN 57%
Faceoffs · MIN won50%off63%neu26%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL2 / 4 · 0.88 xG
MIN0 / 4 · 0.97 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL1 / 7 · 0.60 xG
MIN3 / 17 · 1.68 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL0 / 34 · 0.47 xG
MIN1 / 44 · 0.62 xG

MIN went 3-for-17 from medium danger on 1.68 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
3 G · 1.95 xG · +1.1
MIN
4 G · 3.28 xG · +0.7
012345

MTL finished +1.1 against expected, MIN +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST1/17
SNAP1/7
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN1/2
SLAP0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/16
MIN
WRIST2/24
SNAP1/10
BACKHAND0/8
TIP IN1/4
SLAP0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/15
MTL
MIN
Off the rush
3 G on 21
1.79 xG
4 G on 40
3.01 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.09 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 1-for-17, MIN 2-for-24. MIN 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
J. Dobes
MTL · 20/24 · .833
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium3/171.7-1.3
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

F. Gustavsson
MIN · 17/20 · .850
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/40.9-1.1
Medium1/70.6-0.4
Low0/340.5+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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
29 shots
3
Final
79 shots
MIN
50 shots
4
MTL attackMIN attack
MTL MIN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
0 G · 3 A · 6 SOG · 33:19 on ice
K. Kaprizov
#97 · L · MIN
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 23:50 on ice · -1
M. Boldy
#12 · L · MIN
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:10 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Feb 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:42 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

Minnesota should win this. The model projects a 2.4-to-2.7 expected-goal margin and gives the Wild 55% win probability—not because the numbers diverge, but because Minnesota owns the underlying play while Montreal is living on unsustainable finish rates.

The shot-quality gap is stark. Minnesota generates 52.0% of five-on-five expected goals to Montreal's 48.0%. Yet the Canadiens match that at 49.0% Corsi%—capturing equal shot volume while manufacturing fewer high-danger looks. That asymmetry exposes the regime: Montreal is winning games on bounces.

The verdict lives in PDO. Montreal sits at 1.018 (hot); Minnesota at 1.007 (neutral). That margin compounds in small samples, and the Canadiens are overheated on finishing. Regression isn't speculative—it's inevitable.

Both goaltenders work back-to-backs. J. Wallstedt and J. Dobes introduce uncertainty: fresh backups could arrive, or tired starters could hold the crease. If Wallstedt settles, Minnesota's edge accelerates. If Montreal gets fresh Dobes, PDO stabilizes from the unsustainable zone it occupies.

Montreal's skill wing, Cole Caufield, carries 33 goals at 0.97 xG/60, yet only 1 high-danger finish at 20.0% shooting—compression looms. Oliver Kapanen (19G, 0.83 xG/60, 4 HD goals, 17.8% shooting) mirrors the pattern: talented, unsustainable. Minnesota's Matt Boldy (22G, 0.89 xG/60, 5 high-danger goals, 13.7% shooting) is elevated but grounded in volume. Robby Fabbri (likely inactive, 0.88 xG/60, 6.9% shooting) would add secondary depth if active.

Defensively, Montreal's Mike Matheson and Minnesota's Matt Kiersted flag as weak links. Neither team generates much from dangerous areas—both at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound-goal rate. The game turns on shot quality and execution. The model trusts Minnesota's xG% edge over Montreal's hot PDO.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 55%
55%
MIN
Model favorite
45%
55%
MTL50MIN

MIN by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.4–2.7 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
MTL← edge
edge →MIN
48.0%52.0%
49.0%48.0%
2.412.55
2.622.40
2.242.04
1.961.93
1.0181.007

MIN holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 1.007) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MTL
6-3-1
+6 GD · 1d rest
MIN
6-3-1
+4 GD · 1d rest
1.018
MTL 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 48.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • J. Wallstedt is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Dobes is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
back-to-back.947 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
J. Wallstedt
back-to-back.929 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.

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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% 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