Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
Breakdown · EDM at COL

Oilers hold off the Avalanche

The verdict · coin flip

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

EDM 4 · COL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:40 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 Oilers won 4–3 despite the Avalanche controlling the game. Colorado dominated shot attempts (56%) and expected goals (3.52–3.25), but Edmonton's goaltending and finishing made the difference.

The divergence was stark. The Avalanche generated more chances of better quality—0.071 expected goals per shot versus Edmonton's 0.050—yet scored fewer goals. This is a game Colorado should have won on the numbers.

T. Jarry stole this one. The Oilers' primary starter (11 saves, 0.917 SV%) was perfect on high-danger chances: 100% save percentage on six HD shots. By the model's measure, he saved 2.5 goals above expected. That's a wall.

The Avalanche, meanwhile, shot themselves in the foot. They generated six high-danger chances and converted zero. Low-danger opportunities went two ways—Colorado buried two from that range—but those aren't wins the data rewards. M. Blackwood allowed 0.75 goals above expected, getting no help from his defense when it mattered most.

Edmonton's efficiency told the story. Two of five high-danger chances converted—exactly 40% of the looks they got. Colorado created four rebound chances, crashed the net effectively, and got nothing. That's execution under pressure, the kind that decides playoff-caliber games.

There was a turning point: Connor McDavid's snap shot from the slot (P3, 09:03). One moment, one decision, and the game's momentum shifted. McDavid finished with a goal and an assist. E. Bouchard added two assists; L. Draisaitl collected two as well.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 10
EDM
4
COL
3

Oilers hold off the Avalanche

Chances 3.3 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Oilers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
3.25
COL
3.52
48% of the chances52%

The board read EDM 4, COL 3. The chances read EDM 3.3, COL 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+0.8
goals above expected
EDM3.25 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
COL3.52 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. P1 00:32COLR. Colton0–1
  2. P1 08:13EDMR. Nugent-HopkinsPP1–1
  3. P1 15:41COLM. NecasPP1–2
  4. P1 19:35EDMJ. Roslovic2–2
  5. P2 04:15EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins3–2
  6. P3 07:04COLV. Nichushkin3–3
  7. P3 09:03EDMC. McDavidPP4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
37 shots
4
Final
82 shots
COL
45 shots
3
EDM attackCOL attack
EDM COL Goal
37
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMCOL
2 / 5
1.11 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.33 xG
2 / 14
1.64 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.38 xG
0 / 27
0.50 xG
Low
2 / 52
0.80 xG

The Avalanche went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
T. Jarry
+2.5
EDM · 11/12
A
C. Ingram
+1.5
EDM · 16/18
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers hold off the Avalanche

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 7–12
  1. 00:32COLR. Colton(B. Nelson)0–1
  2. 08:13EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)1–1
  3. 15:41COLM. Necaspower play1–2
  4. 19:35EDMJ. Roslovic(L. Draisaitl)2–2
2ndshots 10–8
  1. 04:15EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins(D. Nurse, Z. Hyman)3–2
3rdshots 7–10
  1. 07:04COLV. Nichushkin(S. Malinski)3–3
  2. 09:03EDMC. McDavidpower play(L. Draisaitl, E. Bouchard)4–3

score reads EDM–COL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.25
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.045
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
39.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.25Expected goals3.52
COL 52% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal30
5High-danger chances6
46All attempts (Corsi)71
Adjusted for score: EDM 38% · COL 62%
Faceoffs · COL won56%off50%neu36%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM2 / 5 · 1.11 xG
COL0 / 6 · 1.33 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM2 / 14 · 1.64 xG
COL1 / 13 · 1.38 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM0 / 27 · 0.50 xG
COL2 / 52 · 0.80 xG

COL went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.33 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
4 G · 3.25 xG · +0.8
COL
3 G · 3.52 xG · -0.5
012345

EDM finished +0.8 against expected, COL -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST1/20
SNAP2/8
TIP IN1/1
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/4
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
COL
WRIST2/23
SNAP0/7
TIP IN1/8
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/1
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/26
EDM
COL
Off the rush
4 G on 28
2.56 xG
1 G on 31
2.34 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.13 xG
0 G on 4
0.66 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 1-for-20, COL 2-for-23. EDM scored 4 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
T. Jarry
EDM · 11/12 · .917
+2.5
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.3+1.3
Medium1/131.4+0.4
Low2/520.8-1.2

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. Ingram
EDM · 16/18 · .889
+1.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.3+1.3
Medium1/131.4+0.4
Low2/520.8-1.2

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

M. Blackwood
COL · 20/24 · .833
-0.8
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.1-0.9
Medium2/141.6-0.4
Low0/270.5+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
37 shots
4
Final
82 shots
COL
45 shots
3
EDM attackCOL attack
EDM COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, COL 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
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 27:21 on ice · +2
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 23:57 on ice · +1
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 22:51 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 10
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:38 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 2.5-2.9 Avalanche victory with Colorado holding 57% win probability. This lean rests on superior underlying play and looming statistical regression.

Colorado dominates at five-on-five: 57.0% expected goals against Edmonton's 52.0%, a 5-point edge that reflects territorial control. Corsi mirrors it—57.0% for Colorado, 50.0% for Edmonton. The Avalanche will dictate possession.

The complication is PDO regression. Colorado's 1.021 PDO runs hot, banking bounces and shooting efficiency that historically mean-revert. Edmonton's 0.982 PDO runs cold. Expect Colorado's edge to compress as Edmonton's underlying luck improves.

Zach Hyman anchors Edmonton's offense at 1.23 expected goals per 60 minutes, producing 14 goals and 13 assists with 1 high-danger goal. His 13.0% shooting rate indicates genuine finishing prowess. Connor McDavid's 0.92 xG/60 is lower—a volume difference—yet he converted it into 25 goals with a 13.7% shot rate and 5 high-danger tallies. His efficiency remains elite.

Colorado counters with Artturi Lehkonen at 1.11 xG/60. He has 18 goals and 22 assists with 6 high-danger goals at 14.9% shooting, signaling dangerous finishing. Ross Colton operates at 1.10 xG/60 with 7 goals and 15 assists; his 4.9% shooting rate suggests positive regression ahead.

Structurally, Jake Walman is Edmonton's defensive liability, while Nazem Kadri fills that role for Colorado. Colorado's territorial dominance means Edmonton defends more frequently—a structural disadvantage when territory controls play.

The model's thesis: underlying dominance survives PDO normalization. History suggests it usually does.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 57%
57%
COL
Model favorite
43%
57%
EDM50COL

COL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 2.5–2.9 COL; 17% 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
EDM← edge
edge →COL
52.0%57.0%
50.0%57.0%
2.643.03
2.472.30
2.132.63
2.291.56
0.9821.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
EDM
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
COL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next