Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · WPG at DAL

Stars run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 3 · DAL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:06 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

C. Hellebuyck played 1.22 goals above expectation, yet Winnipeg lost in overtime. The Jets' goalie made 24 of 28 shots (0.857 SV%), keeping his team within reach against Dallas's overwhelming underlying advantage. The Stars controlled 63 percent of expected goals at 5v5 (5.22 to 3.02) and prevailed 4-3 after extra time.

The gulf in shot quality was stark. Dallas averaged 0.089 expected goals per attempt against Winnipeg's 0.054. The Stars generated 10 high-danger chances to the Jets' 5 and were clinical on the rush—3 goals on 29 chances. Both teams crashed the net identically: 3 rebound opportunities each, 1 converted per side. But the underlying advantage lay entirely with Dallas.

Winnipeg had a single advantage: a dominant power play. The Jets scored twice on 14 shots (0.84 xG). At even strength, they were outmatched.

Thomas Harley's backhander from the doorstep at 02:05 of overtime ended it. J. Oettinger (24/27, 0.889 SV%) managed the game in Dallas's crease, but C. Hellebuyck's performance made this competitive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Feb 2
WPG
3
DAL
4

Stars run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.0 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
3.02
DAL
5.22
37% of the chances63%

The board read WPG 3, DAL 4. The chances read WPG 3.0, DAL 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
−1.2
goals above expected
DAL5.22 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG3.02 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. P2 00:48DALJ. RobertsonPP0–1
  2. P2 02:26WPGG. Vilardi1–1
  3. P2 03:58WPGC. PerfettiPP2–1
  4. P2 15:13DALN. Lundkvist2–2
  5. P3 12:17DALM. Rantanen2–3
  6. P3 18:17WPGL. StanleyPP3–3
  7. OT 02:05DALT. Harley3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
36 shots
3
Final
86 shots
DAL
50 shots
4
WPG attackDAL attack
WPG DAL Goal
36
shots · 3 in
50
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGDAL
1 / 5
1.32 xG
High danger
2 / 10
2.36 xG
1 / 10
1.13 xG
Medium
2 / 19
2.35 xG
1 / 41
0.57 xG
Low
0 / 30
0.51 xG

The Stars buried 2 of 10 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
C. Hellebuyck
+1.2
WPG · 24/28
C
J. Oettinger
+0.0
DAL · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars run the Jets 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 8–8no goals
    2ndshots 9–9
    1. 00:48DALJ. Robertsonpower play(M. Rantanen, R. Hintz)0–1
    2. 02:26WPGG. Vilardi(C. Perfetti, A. Lowry)1–1
    3. 03:58WPGC. Perfettipower play(G. Vilardi, M. Scheifele)2–1
    4. 15:13DALN. Lundkvist(M. Duchene, J. Benn)2–2
    3rdshots 9–9
    1. 12:17DALM. Rantanen(J. Hryckowian, M. Heiskanen)2–3
    2. 18:17WPGL. Stanleypower play(M. Scheifele, K. Connor)3–3
    OTshots 1–2
    1. 02:05DALT. Harley(M. Duchene, M. Heiskanen)3–4

    score reads WPG–DAL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.22
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.014
    DAL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    51.3%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.02Expected goals5.22
    DAL 63% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal28
    5High-danger chances10
    56All attempts (Corsi)59
    Adjusted for score: WPG 48% · DAL 52%
    Faceoffs · DAL won55%off43%neu79%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    WPG1 / 5 · 1.32 xG
    DAL2 / 10 · 2.36 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    WPG1 / 10 · 1.13 xG
    DAL2 / 19 · 2.35 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    WPG1 / 41 · 0.57 xG
    DAL0 / 30 · 0.51 xG

    DAL went 0-for-30 from low danger on 0.51 expected goals — 0.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    WPG
    3 G · 3.02 xG · -0.0
    DAL
    4 G · 5.22 xG · -1.2
    0123456

    WPG finished -0.0 against expected, DAL -1.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    WPG
    SNAP2/21
    SLAP1/5
    TIP IN0/4
    WRIST0/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/20
    DAL
    SNAP1/23
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN1/6
    WRIST0/8
    BACKHAND2/4
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/9
    WPG
    DAL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 22
    2.10 xG
    3 G on 29
    3.47 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 3
    0.61 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.54 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 2-for-21, DAL 1-for-23. DAL scored 3 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
    C. Hellebuyck
    WPG · 24/28 · .857
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/102.4+0.4
    Medium2/192.4+0.3
    Low0/300.5+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

    J. Oettinger
    DAL · 24/27 · .889
    +0.0
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.3+0.3
    Medium1/101.1+0.1
    Low1/410.6-0.4

    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

    86 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    WPG
    36 shots
    3
    Final
    86 shots
    DAL
    50 shots
    4
    WPG attackDAL attack
    WPG DAL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, DAL 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. Heiskanen
    #4 · D · DAL
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 26:18 on ice · -1
    M. Scheifele
    #55 · C · WPG
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 24:36 on ice · -2
    M. Rantanen
    #96 · R · DAL
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:55 on ice
    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, 3:45 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 2.3-to-2.6 goal spread in Dallas's favor, with the Stars holding 55% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Dallas owns the underlying play. Their 51.0% 5v5 expected goals percentage dwarfs Winnipeg's 48.0%, suggesting the Stars should sustain pressure and generate better chances. But here's the catch: Dallas's PDO sits at 1.024, which means they're running hot on conversion luck. Expect some regression there.

    Winnipeg's Corsi dominance—49.0% to Dallas's 47.0%—suggests the Jets control play volume at even strength. Yet xG favors the Stars, indicating Dallas capitalizes on what they do generate. That's the tension. Winnipeg gets more shot attempts but Dallas gets the higher-quality ones.

    C. DeSmith's back-to-back situation adds opacity. Watch whether Dallas rolls with him or dips into reserves. A tired starter or a fresh backup could swing momentum either way.

    The Players to Watch

    Nino Niederreiter leads Winnipeg's charge. He's at 0.87 xG per 60 minutes with 6 goals and 6 assists, including 3 high-danger chances. His 8.6% shooting rate is sustainable, meaning he's not simply running hot—he's converting opportunities at a reasonable clip. Kyle Connor's 13.0% shooting is the real outlier; his 25 goals and 30 assists come on just 0.83 xG/60, suggesting he's beating the model on finish quality.

    Jason Robertson leads Dallas offensively. At 0.96 xG/60, he's generating more scoring chances than anyone else on the ice. His 25 goals and 21 assists come with only 2 high-danger markers, implying his xG overestimates his actual scoring. Michael Bunting provides secondary scoring at 0.83 xG/60, though his 8 goals and 14 assists reflect a lower shooting rate (7.6%) that could inflate if his luck normalizes.

    The Decision

    Dallas has the analytics edge—better five-on-five shot quality and possession efficiency by expected goals. Winnipeg has volume. Dallas's PDO regression risk is real, but the Stars have earned their 55% win probability. With DeSmith in question, Dallas's depth in net becomes the deciding variable. If they go with their starter, edge Dallas. If they rotate, Winnipeg gets closer to fair value.

    This is genuinely uncertain. Neither team has overwhelmed the other's fundamental case.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DAL 55%
    55%
    DAL
    Model favorite
    45%
    55%
    WPG50DAL

    DAL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.3–2.6 DAL; 19% 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 →DAL
    48.0%51.0%
    49.0%47.0%
    2.342.36
    2.552.29
    1.902.07
    2.101.68
    0.9981.024

    DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.024) says DAL 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 · 2d rest
    DAL
    6-4-0
    +3 GD · 1d rest
    0.998
    WPG PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • C. DeSmith is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    WPG
    Expected in goal
    E. Comrie
    2 days rest.964 last start
    Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DAL
    Expected in goal
    C. DeSmith
    back-to-back.857 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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
    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
    DAL
    Jason Robertson25G 21A
    0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
    Michael Bunting8G 14A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next