Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
Breakdown · CHI at WPG

Jets edge the Blackhawks in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 2 · WPG 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:22 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 Jets beat the Blackhawks 3–2 in overtime. Both teams had gone 0-for-5 on high-danger chances. Victory came from elsewhere: the Jets held 63 percent of shot attempts (32–19) and 58 percent of expected goals (3.42–2.51), and were more efficient on the rush—three goals on 23 chances to two for the Blackhawks. Mark Scheifele's wrist shot from the high slot, at 2:06 of overtime, ended it.

S. Knight stopped 29 of 32 for the Blackhawks (0.906 SV%). C. Hellebuyck stopped 17 of 19 for the Jets (0.895 SV%, +0.51 vs. expected). With both teams scoreless on high-danger chances, rush efficiency—not goaltending—determined the outcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 3
CHI
2
WPG
3

Jets edge the Blackhawks in overtime

Chances 2.5 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
2.51
WPG
3.42
42% of the chances58%

The board read CHI 2, WPG 3. The chances read CHI 2.5, WPG 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
−0.4
goals above expected
WPG3.42 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.51 expected · 2 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 03:59WPGD. Samberg0–1
  2. P1 18:48CHIT. TeravainenPP1–1
  3. P3 00:32CHIR. Greene2–1
  4. P3 19:21WPGC. PerfettiPP2–2
  5. OT 02:06WPGM. Scheifele2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
31 shots
2
Final
73 shots
WPG
42 shots
3
CHI attackWPG attack
CHI WPG Goal
31
shots · 2 in
42
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIWPG
0 / 5
1.17 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.39 xG
1 / 8
0.92 xG
Medium
3 / 14
1.43 xG
1 / 29
0.42 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.60 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
C. Hellebuyck
+0.5
WPG · 17/19
B
S. Knight
+0.4
CHI · 29/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets edge the Blackhawks in overtime

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 4–6
  1. 03:59WPGD. Samberg(M. Scheifele, K. Connor)0–1
  2. 18:48CHIT. Teravainenpower play(F. Nazar, C. Bedard)1–1
2ndshots 10–7no goals
    3rdshots 5–17
    1. 00:32CHIR. Greene(C. Bedard, S. Rinzel)2–1
    2. 19:21WPGC. Perfettipower play(M. Scheifele, L. Stanley)2–2
    OTshots 0–2
    1. 02:06WPGM. Scheifele(D. Samberg)2–3

    score reads CHI–WPG

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.42
    WPG chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.4
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.002
    WPG puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    58.8%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.51Expected goals3.42
    WPG 58% of the chance quality
    19Shots on goal32
    5High-danger chances5
    42All attempts (Corsi)60
    Adjusted for score: CHI 41% · WPG 59%
    Faceoffs · WPG won65%off50%neu28%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI0 / 5 · 1.17 xG
    WPG0 / 5 · 1.39 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI1 / 8 · 0.92 xG
    WPG3 / 14 · 1.43 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI1 / 29 · 0.42 xG
    WPG0 / 41 · 0.60 xG

    WPG went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.43 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    2 G · 2.51 xG · -0.5
    WPG
    3 G · 3.42 xG · -0.4
    01234

    CHI finished -0.5 against expected, WPG -0.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    WRIST2/18
    SNAP0/5
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/11
    WPG
    WRIST3/25
    SNAP0/5
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/18
    CHI
    WPG
    Off the rush
    2 G on 23
    2.15 xG
    3 G on 23
    1.45 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.22 xG
    0 G on 5
    1.32 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-18, WPG 3-for-25. WPG 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. Knight
    CHI · 29/32 · .906
    +0.4
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.4+1.4
    Medium3/141.4-1.6
    Low0/410.6+0.6

    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 · 17/19 · .895
    +0.5
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium1/80.9-0.1
    Low1/290.4-0.6

    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

    73 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    31 shots
    2
    Final
    73 shots
    WPG
    42 shots
    3
    CHI attackWPG attack
    CHI WPG Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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
    M. Scheifele
    #55 · C · WPG
    1 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 23:30 on ice · +3
    D. Samberg
    #54 · D · WPG
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:14 on ice · +2
    C. Bedard
    #98 · C · CHI
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 19:19 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Mar 3
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:30 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

    The model projects a 2.4–2.8 goal game with Winnipeg at 57% win probability. That lean reflects a clear structural advantage: the Jets generate more dangerous chances and maintain a marginal edge in conversion.

    Winnipeg's 48.0% expected goals share outpaces Chicago's 42.0%. The deficit extends to total shots: the Jets hold 49.0% Corsi versus the Blackhawks' 46.0%. Neither team benefits from outlier luck—Chicago's 0.996 PDO and Winnipeg's 0.998 hover near neutral—so these gaps represent real differences in play.

    Recent form complicates the picture. The Jets have posted 3-3-4 over their last 10, keeping pace on points, yet both teams trail their expected output. Winnipeg is -12 on goal differential over that span; Chicago is -13. That narrow gap is instructive: both squads are generating chances without finishing them consistently, and the underlying play, not recent results, should drive predictive weight.

    Chicago's offensive threat concentrates in two players. Tyler Bertuzzi leads at 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes and shoots 18.0%, producing 20 goals and 15 assists with 7 high-danger goals. Connor Bedard generates 0.82 xG/60 but converts at only 11.8%, though his 17 goals and 27 assists demonstrate that depth scoring extends beyond pure chance creation.

    Winnipeg's scoring spreads wider. Kyle Connor has 25 goals and 30 assists on 0.83 xG/60. Nino Niederreiter's 0.87 xG/60 ranks among the league's most dangerous shot creators; his 6 goals and 6 assists against that rate signal a player whose production will likely migrate toward expected output.

    Anton Frondell anchors Chicago's defensive weak link; Colin Miller does for Winnipeg. The model's edge for Winnipeg boils down to volume—more chances generated—and marginal efficiency, both reinforced by underlying metrics favoring sustained patterns over variance.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    WPG 57%
    57%
    WPG
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    CHI50WPG

    WPG by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.4–2.8 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
    CHI← edge
    edge →WPG
    42.0%48.0%
    46.0%49.0%
    2.172.34
    2.942.55
    1.841.90
    2.412.10
    0.9960.998

    WPG holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CHI
    2-6-2
    -13 GD · 2d rest
    WPG
    3-3-4
    -12 GD · 2d rest
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    WPG PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Jets are the hotter team by points pace (3-3-4 in their last 10).
    • The Jets are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    A. Soderblom
    2 days rest1.000 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    WPG
    Expected in goal
    C. Hellebuyck
    2 days rest.939 last start
    Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season

    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
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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