Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Thu, Feb 26 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at OTT

Red Wings steal one from the Senators against the run of play

Final / OTThu, Feb 26
DETDetroit Red Wings2OTTOttawa Senators1
The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.26–3.84 and won anyway.

DET 2 · OTT 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:31 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

Detroit stole this one. Ottawa controlled 63% of expected goals at 5v5 and still lost 2–1 in overtime—a rout on paper that the Red Wings refused to accept.

The Senators dominated the volume: 57% of shot attempts (27–20 on goal), 63–37% split in xG (3.84–2.26). But Ottawa's quality was wasted. The Senators generated 7 high-danger chances to Detroit's 0, yet converted none. That 0/7 finish won't happen often.

J. Gibson (DET) was the difference. He saved 2.8 goals above expected, posting a 0.963 SV% and stopping all 7 high-danger shots. L. Ullmark (OTT) finished at 0.900 SV%, and the gap between those two numbers—less than 7 percentage points—contained the entire game.

Ottawa didn't lack for opportunity. They created 5 rebound chances (0 converted) and generated far more dangerous looks per shot (0.058 xG/shot vs Detroit's 0.038). The Senators underperformed their xG by 2.84 goals—a crushing miss that spoke to execution more than luck.

The turning point: Dylan Larkin's backhander from the slot at 01:50 of overtime. Not a rebound, not a defensive breakdown, but a clean shot that ended it. Fitting for a game Detroit had no right to win.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Feb 26
DET
2
OTT
1

Red Wings steal one from the Senators against the run of play

Chances 2.3 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
2.26
OTT
3.84
37% of the chances63%

The board read DET 2, OTT 1. The chances read DET 2.3, OTT 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
−0.3
goals above expected
DET2.26 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.84 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 2.8 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 18:44OTTB. TkachukPP0–1
  2. P2 05:24DETD. LarkinPP1–1
  3. OT 01:50DETD. Larkin2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
33 shots
2
Final
77 shots
OTT
44 shots
1
DET attackOTT attack
DET OTT Goal
33
shots · 2 in
44
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETOTT
0 / 0
0.00 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.96 xG
2 / 14
1.82 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.21 xG
0 / 45
0.44 xG
Low
0 / 46
0.66 xG

The Senators went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Gibson
+2.8
DET · 26/27
B
L. Ullmark
+0.3
OTT · 18/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings steal one from the Senators against the run of play

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 4–13
  1. 18:44OTTB. Tkachukpower play(J. Sanderson, T. Stützle)0–1
2ndshots 7–9
  1. 05:24DETD. Larkinpower play(L. Raymond, M. Seider)1–1
3rdshots 8–5no goals
    OTshots 1–0
    1. 01:50DETD. Larkin(L. Raymond)2–1

    score reads DET–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.26
    DET chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.019
    DET puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    47.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.26Expected goals3.84
    OTT 63% of the chance quality
    20Shots on goal27
    0High-danger chances7
    59All attempts (Corsi)66
    Adjusted for score: DET 48% · OTT 52%
    Faceoffs · OTT won70%off41%neu74%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DET0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
    OTT0 / 7 · 1.96 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DET2 / 14 · 1.82 xG
    OTT1 / 13 · 1.21 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DET0 / 45 · 0.44 xG
    OTT0 / 46 · 0.66 xG

    OTT went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.96 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DET
    2 G · 2.26 xG · -0.3
    OTT
    1 G · 3.84 xG · -2.8
    012345

    DET finished -0.3 against expected, OTT -2.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DET
    WRIST0/18
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND1/5
    SNAP1/3
    TIP IN0/4
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/26
    OTT
    WRIST1/21
    SLAP0/14
    BACKHAND0/4
    SNAP0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/22
    DET
    OTT
    Off the rush
    1 G on 21
    1.48 xG
    1 G on 29
    2.71 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.46 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.94 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 0-for-18, OTT 1-for-21.

    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. Gibson
    DET · 26/27 · .963
    +2.8
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/72.0+2.0
    Medium1/131.2+0.2
    Low0/460.7+0.7

    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

    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 18/20 · .900
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    Medium2/141.8-0.2
    Low0/450.4+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

    77 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DET
    33 shots
    2
    Final
    77 shots
    OTT
    44 shots
    1
    DET attackOTT attack
    DET OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — DET left, OTT 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
    D. Larkin
    #71 · C · DET
    2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 23:11 on ice · +1
    L. Raymond
    #23 · L · DET
    0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 20:42 on ice · +1
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:39 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Feb 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:30 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

    Ottawa's path to victory runs through control. The model projects the Senators at 58% win probability in a forecast game of 2.2–2.7 goals, built on a clean advantage in 5v5 play.

    The underlying numbers tell the story. Ottawa out-generates scoring chances at 56.0% expected goals share versus Detroit's 49.0%. That gap matters: the Senators push the puck into dangerous areas more often. On the territorial front, the Corsi edge extends to 53.0% for Ottawa, dictating where play happens most of the time. Detroit finds itself hemmed in, which is the recipe for reactive hockey.

    Players to Watch

    Detroit Red Wings

    • Alex DeBrincat — 0.88 xG/60, 17G 28A, 2 HD goals, 9.0% shooting
    • Marco Kasper — 0.81 xG/60, 7G 8A, 1 HD goals, 6.1% shooting

    Ottawa Senators

    • Brady Tkachuk — 1.19 xG/60, 11G 20A, 2 HD goals, 7.5% shooting
    • Dylan Cozens — 1.00 xG/60, 13G 15A, 1 HD goals, 9.5% shooting

    DeBrincat is Detroit's anchor at 17 goals and 28 assists, though his 9.0% shooting rate leaves room to cool. Brady Tkachuk provides Ottawa's principal threat at 1.19 expected goals per 60, backed by 11 goals and 20 assists. Tkachuk's counterpart Dylan Cozens shoots at 9.5%, adding 13 goals and 15 assists. Kasper's 6.1% efficiency reflects Detroit's broader problem: the team generates chances at lower volume and converts them less frequently.

    The efficiency metrics hint at sustainability. Ottawa's PDO of 0.993 sits marginally above neutral, while Detroit's 0.985 sits just below. Neither team is running hot or cold on luck. Defensively, Axel Sandin-Pellikka represents Detroit's vulnerability, while Nick Jensen fills that role for Ottawa. Thursday's game should reflect the underlying talent balance: one team in control, one team reactive.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 58%
    58%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    42%
    58%
    DET50OTT

    OTT by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score DET 2.3–2.7 OTT; 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
    DET← edge
    edge →OTT
    49.0%56.0%
    49.0%53.0%
    2.382.66
    2.502.12
    1.732.18
    2.071.99
    0.9850.993

    OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    DET
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    OTT
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.985
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    DET
    Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
    0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
    Marco Kasper7G 8A
    0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page