Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
← Sat, Mar 7 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at WPG

Jets run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSat, Mar 7
VANVancouver Canucks2WPGWinnipeg Jets3
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 2 · WPG 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:04 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

Winnipeg controlled 62% of 5v5 expected goals (4.05–2.51) and won 3-2 in overtime. The scoreline reflected the dominance, though the Jets underperformed their xG by 1.05 goals. K. Lankinen stopped 1.1 goals above expected—offsetting performances that kept the game closer than the underlying numbers predicted.

The Jets held 61% of shot attempts (36–23) and won high-danger chances 6–4. Lankinen's 0.917 save percentage was the reason Vancouver remained competitive throughout. Winnipeg's volume and quality advantages never became a rout.

The Jets' edge appeared most clearly in rush execution. Winnipeg scored three goals on 31 rush chances while Vancouver managed two on 21. Winnipeg created nine rebound opportunities (none converted); Vancouver three (none converted). The asymmetry showed how much harder Winnipeg pushed inside the blue paint.

Josh Morrissey's slap shot from the top of the circles at 01:49 of overtime decided the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 7
VAN
2
WPG
3

Jets run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.51
WPG
4.05
38% of the chances62%

The board read VAN 2, WPG 3. The chances read VAN 2.5, WPG 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
−1.1
goals above expected
WPG4.05 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.51 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 07:28VANL. Karlsson1–0
  2. P2 19:48WPGM. Scheifele1–1
  3. P3 00:33VANL. Ohgren2–1
  4. P3 15:12WPGG. VilardiPP2–2
  5. OT 01:49WPGJ. Morrissey2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
34 shots
2
Final
88 shots
WPG
54 shots
3
VAN attackWPG attack
VAN WPG Goal
34
shots · 2 in
54
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANWPG
0 / 4
0.95 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.48 xG
2 / 13
1.19 xG
Medium
1 / 19
1.82 xG
0 / 22
0.36 xG
Low
1 / 46
0.75 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
K. Lankinen
+1.1
VAN · 33/36
B
C. Hellebuyck
+0.5
WPG · 21/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets run the Canucks 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 5–10
  1. 07:28VANL. Karlsson(M. Sasson, T. Blueger)1–0
2ndshots 6–15
  1. 19:48WPGM. Scheifele(J. Toews)1–1
3rdshots 10–9
  1. 00:33VANL. Ohgren(T. Blueger, L. Karlsson)2–1
  2. 15:12WPGG. Vilardipower play(M. Scheifele, J. Morrissey)2–2
OTshots 2–2
  1. 01:49WPGJ. Morrissey(M. Scheifele, K. Connor)2–3

score reads VAN–WPG

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.05
WPG chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.991
WPG puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
64.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.51Expected goals4.05
WPG 62% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal36
4High-danger chances6
39All attempts (Corsi)71
Adjusted for score: VAN 33% · WPG 67%
Faceoffs · WPG won80%off50%neu31%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN0 / 4 · 0.95 xG
WPG1 / 6 · 1.48 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN2 / 13 · 1.19 xG
WPG1 / 19 · 1.82 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 22 · 0.36 xG
WPG1 / 46 · 0.75 xG

VAN went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.95 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
2 G · 2.51 xG · -0.5
WPG
3 G · 4.05 xG · -1.1
012345

VAN finished -0.5 against expected, WPG -1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST1/19
SLAP0/2
SNAP1/4
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/5
WPG
WRIST1/24
SLAP1/12
SNAP0/8
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/4
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/17
VAN
WPG
Off the rush
2 G on 21
1.40 xG
3 G on 31
2.31 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.38 xG
0 G on 9
1.18 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 1-for-19, WPG 1-for-24. 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
K. Lankinen
VAN · 33/36 · .917
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.5+0.5
Medium1/191.8+0.8
Low1/460.8-0.3

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

C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 21/23 · .913
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium2/131.2-0.8
Low0/220.4+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
34 shots
2
Final
88 shots
WPG
54 shots
3
VAN attackWPG attack
VAN WPG Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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 · 25:07 on ice · +1
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 24:27 on ice · +1
T. Blueger
#53 · C · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:08 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 7
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:01 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 VAN 2.4 - 2.7 WPG game with the Jets favored at 56% win probability. Winnipeg's underlying superiority is real, but Vancouver's luck deficit makes this overvalued on short-money lines.

The Jets are the hotter team: 5-2-3 in their last 10 games while the Canucks sit at -22 goal differential over the same span—a rout that goes deeper than the scoreboard. At 5v5, Winnipeg has dominated the possession battle: 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi versus Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. The difference isn't dramatic, but it's consistent and directional.

Where Winnipeg's edge softens: goaltending and variance. C. Hellebuyck appears on a back-to-back; monitor for a starter rest day or a fatigued matchup. More pressingly, the Canucks are running a 0.974 PDO—ice-cold—while Winnipeg sits at 0.998, nearly league average. Vancouver is due for positive regression, meaning the underlying play won't stay this lopsided on the scoresheet.

Drew O'Connor leads Vancouver's offense, but Filip Chytil is likely out after 33 days. On Winnipeg's side, Kyle Connor and Nino Niederreiter carry the scoring load. Defensively, Victor Mancini is Vancouver's weak link; Colin Miller plays that role for Winnipeg. Winnipeg's real edge is in shot generation and suppression at even strength.

Players to Watch

VAN

  • Drew O'Connor — 0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting
  • Filip Chytil — 1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting (likely out, 33 days)

WPG

  • Kyle Connor — 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting
  • Nino Niederreiter — 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting
What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WPG 56%
55%
WPG
Model favorite
45%
55%
VAN50WPG

WPG by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.4–2.7 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
VAN← edge
edge →WPG
44.0%48.0%
46.0%49.0%
2.222.34
2.812.55
1.601.90
2.562.10
0.9740.998

WPG holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 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
VAN
1-7-2
-22 GD · 2d rest
WPG
5-2-3
-3 GD · 1d rest
0.974
VAN 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 44.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Jets are the hotter team by points pace (5-2-3 in their last 10).
  • The Canucks are underwater at -22 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
2 days rest.818 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

WPG
Expected in goal
C. Hellebuyck
back-to-back.963 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
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 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

Back to the front page