Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
Breakdown · MTL at WPG

S. Montembeault stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Jets

The verdict · coin flip

The Canadiens won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

MTL 5 · WPG 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:08 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

Expected goals predicted a near-even contest—6.89–6.84 favoring Winnipeg—yet Montreal won 5–1. The gap wasn't luck; it was goaltending.

S. Montembeault was dominant. He saved 36 of 37 shots for a 0.973 save percentage, performing 5.89 goals above expected. That alone accounts for the four-goal margin. C. Hellebuyck faced an easier workload (22 of 26 saves) but finished at 0.846, and the Jets paid the price.

The Jets dictated play. They held 58% of shot attempts (37–27) and matched Montreal's expected goals at 6.89. High-danger chances went 14–16 in favor of Montreal. The problem: Winnipeg converted zero of its 14 high-danger opportunities. That won't happen often.

Montreal's edge came in efficiency. They scored three goals on 22 rush attempts—lethal conversion. Winnipeg generated 11 rebound opportunities but buried none. Montreal created only four rebound chances and converted one. In close play, that difference mattered.

Phillip Danault's wrist shot from the top of the circles provided an early spark. Montreal didn't relent.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 4
MTL
5
WPG
1

S. Montembeault stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Jets

Chances 6.8 – 6.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Canadiens took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
6.84
WPG
6.89
50% of the chances50%

The board read MTL 5, WPG 1. The chances read MTL 6.8, WPG 6.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
−1.8
goals above expected
MTL6.84 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG6.89 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 5.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 06:07WPGK. ConnorPP0–1
  2. P1 16:26MTLO. Kapanen1–1
  3. P2 05:28MTLJ. Anderson2–1
  4. P2 06:44MTLL. Hutson3–1
  5. P3 10:57MTLB. GallagherPP4–1
  6. P3 19:46MTLP. DanaultEN5–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
41 shots
5
Final
103 shots
WPG
62 shots
1
MTL attackWPG attack
MTL WPG Goal
41
shots · 5 in
62
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLWPG
3 / 16
5.38 xG
High danger
0 / 14
3.82 xG
2 / 9
1.13 xG
Medium
1 / 25
2.54 xG
0 / 34
0.33 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.54 xG

The Jets went 0 for 14 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Montembeault
+5.9
MTL · 36/37
A+
C. Hellebuyck
+2.8
WPG · 22/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

S. Montembeault stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Jets

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 11–13
  1. 06:07WPGK. Connorpower play(G. Vilardi, M. Scheifele)0–1
  2. 16:26MTLO. Kapanen(N. Dobson, J. Slafkovský)1–1
2ndshots 9–13
  1. 05:28MTLJ. Anderson(J. Struble, B. Gallagher)2–1
  2. 06:44MTLL. Hutson(J. Anderson, B. Gallagher)3–1
3rdshots 7–11
  1. 10:57MTLB. Gallagherpower play(K. Dach, Z. Bolduc)4–1
  2. 19:46MTLP. Danaultempty net(J. Anderson, N. Dobson)5–1

score reads MTL–WPG

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.84
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.071
MTL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

6.84Expected goals6.89
WPG 50% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal37
16High-danger chances14
59All attempts (Corsi)74
Adjusted for score: MTL 41% · WPG 59%
Faceoffs · WPG won67%off33%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL3 / 16 · 5.38 xG
WPG0 / 14 · 3.82 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL2 / 9 · 1.13 xG
WPG1 / 25 · 2.54 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL0 / 34 · 0.33 xG
WPG0 / 35 · 0.54 xG

WPG went 0-for-14 from high danger on 3.82 expected goals — 3.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
5 G · 6.84 xG · -1.8
WPG
1 G · 6.89 xG · -5.9
012345678

MTL finished -1.8 against expected, WPG -5.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST3/17
SNAP1/8
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/7
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/18
WPG
WRIST0/32
SNAP1/7
TIP IN0/9
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/8
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/12
MTL
WPG
Off the rush
3 G on 22
3.25 xG
1 G on 31
3.95 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.58 xG
0 G on 11
2.28 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 3-for-17, WPG 0-for-32. MTL 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
S. Montembeault
MTL · 36/37 · .973
+5.9
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/143.8+3.8
Medium1/252.5+1.5
Low0/350.5+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

C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 22/26 · .846
+2.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/165.4+2.4
Medium2/91.1-0.9
Low0/340.3+0.3

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

103 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
41 shots
5
Final
103 shots
WPG
62 shots
1
MTL attackWPG attack
MTL WPG Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, WPG 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
J. Anderson
#17 · R · MTL
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 15:21 on ice · +3
B. Gallagher
#11 · R · MTL
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 12:38 on ice · +2
N. Dobson
#53 · D · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:31 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Feb 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:07 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 Montreal to score 2.5 to 2.6 goals while Winnipeg scores at a similar rate, giving the Jets 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as sports betting offers: both teams are equally matched in the underlying mechanics of hockey.

At 5v5, the similarity is uncanny. Montreal and Winnipeg both generate 48.0% expected goals and own 49.0% Corsi—identical possession and shot quality. The only daylight between them sits in luck: Montreal's PDO of 1.018 means it's converting at a rate above what the numbers predict, while Winnipeg's 0.998 suggests it's underperforming slightly. Expect some regression from Montreal in this department.

The goaltending angle adds friction. C. Hellebuyck starts a back-to-back for Winnipeg and J. Dobes does the same for Montreal, either of whom could be backed by a relief or run tired. That's a wildcard neither projection fully accounts for.

The offense will turn on a handful of names. Cole Caufield carries Montreal's weight: 33 goals already with a 0.97 xG per 60 minutes, generating chances at an elite rate. His 20.0% shooting mark is unsustainable, but his 1 high-danger goal speaks to actual conversion on the looks he creates. Oliver Kapanen (19 goals, 0.83 xG/60) provides secondary punch, shooting at 17.8%—also elevated but producing high-danger chances (4 goals).

For Winnipeg, Nino Niederreiter (6 goals, 0.87 xG/60) has lagged badly despite excellent underlying metrics, with 3 high-danger goals suggesting he's been unlucky. Kyle Connor (25 goals, 30 assists) is the engine: 0.83 xG/60 with only 2 high-danger goals means he's converting routine chances into points by volume and playmaking.

Montreal's defensive liability is Mike Matheson; Winnipeg's is Colin Miller. At this margin—metrics identical, goaltenders tired, variance as the tiebreaker—you're watching a game the model genuinely cannot differentiate. The Jets get a slight nod at 52%, but Montreal's PDO regression risk could swing the edge back. This is the kind of game Vegas respects and experts hedge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WPG 52%
52%
WPG
Model favorite
48%
52%
MTL50WPG

WPG by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MTL 2.5–2.6 WPG; 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 →WPG
48.0%48.0%
49.0%49.0%
2.412.34
2.622.55
2.241.90
1.962.10
1.0180.998

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.998) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MTL
5-3-2
+2 GD · 1d rest
WPG
4-3-3
-4 GD · 1d rest
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • C. Hellebuyck 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.833 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.

WPG
Expected in goal
C. Hellebuyck
back-to-back.857 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.

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
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
Keep going

Where to next