Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
← Sun, Mar 15 · the slate
Breakdown · STL at WPG

Jets hold off the Blues

FinalSun, Mar 15
STLSt. Louis Blues2WPGWinnipeg Jets3
The verdict · stolen

The Jets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.81–2.80 and won anyway.

STL 2 · WPG 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:24 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 Blues 3–2 despite being outplayed by expected goals 58–42. This was goaltending winning against the flow of play.

St. Louis generated superior shot quality throughout, finishing with an expected-goal edge of 3.81–2.80. The Blues also dominated shot attempts 31–16 and high-danger chances 6–4. By process, they deserved better than a two-goal loss. But E. Comrie disagreed.

E. Comrie saved 1.81 goals above his expected save percentage, turning breakdowns into stops. J. Binnington, on the other side, underperformed his xG allowance — the Blues' 0.812 save percentage was a goal-plus worse than it should have been.

The Jets' other edge was the rush. Winnipeg converted three goals on 16 rush chances, packing lethal transitional speed where St. Louis's processing couldn't keep pace. M. Barron's positioning work accumulated two assists, a sign of how efficiently the Jets exploited transitions.

Dylan Holloway's wrist shot from the doorstep at 19:09 of the third period proved the turning point. It was the kind of look St. Louis created plenty of but couldn't finish — the inverse of Winnipeg's night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 15
STL
2
WPG
3

Jets hold off the Blues

Chances 3.8 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
3.81
WPG
2.80
58% of the chances42%

The board read STL 2, WPG 3. The chances read STL 3.8, WPG 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
+0.2
goals above expected
WPG2.80 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.81 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blues left 1.8 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 02:31WPGH. Fleury0–1
  2. P1 07:51WPGM. Scheifele0–2
  3. P3 05:17STLD. Dvorsky1–2
  4. P3 11:53WPGK. ConnorPP1–3
  5. P3 19:09STLD. HollowayPP2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
44 shots
2
Final
75 shots
WPG
31 shots
3
STL attackWPG attack
STL WPG Goal
44
shots · 2 in
31
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLWPG
1 / 6
1.74 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.26 xG
1 / 12
1.37 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.11 xG
0 / 42
0.71 xG
Low
0 / 21
0.44 xG

High-danger looks: STL 1 of 6, WPG 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
E. Comrie
+1.8
WPG · 29/31
C
J. Binnington
−0.2
STL · 13/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets hold off the Blues

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 9–6
  1. 02:31WPGH. Fleury(B. Lambert, M. Barron)0–1
  2. 07:51WPGM. Scheifele(J. Morrissey)0–2
2ndshots 6–4no goals
    3rdshots 16–6
    1. 05:17STLD. Dvorsky(J. Berggren, P. Suter)1–2
    2. 11:53WPGK. Connorpower play(M. Barron, H. Fleury)1–3
    3. 19:09STLD. Hollowaypower play(L. Mailloux, J. Snuggerud)2–3

    score reads STL–WPG

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.80
    WPG chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.048
    WPG puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    38.1%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.81Expected goals2.80
    STL 58% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal16
    6High-danger chances4
    60All attempts (Corsi)37
    Adjusted for score: STL 68% · WPG 32%
    Faceoffs · WPG won62%off50%neu83%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    STL1 / 6 · 1.74 xG
    WPG1 / 4 · 1.26 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    STL1 / 12 · 1.37 xG
    WPG2 / 12 · 1.11 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    STL0 / 42 · 0.71 xG
    WPG0 / 21 · 0.44 xG

    WPG went 2-for-12 from medium danger on 1.11 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    STL
    2 G · 3.81 xG · -1.8
    WPG
    3 G · 2.80 xG · +0.2
    012345

    STL finished -1.8 against expected, WPG +0.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    STL
    WRIST1/19
    SNAP0/12
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/2
    TIP IN1/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/16
    WPG
    WRIST0/15
    SNAP2/8
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND1/3
    TIP IN0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/6
    STL
    WPG
    Off the rush
    1 G on 26
    2.32 xG
    3 G on 16
    1.49 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 2
    0.75 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.05 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-19, WPG 0-for-15. 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
    J. Binnington
    STL · 13/16 · .812
    -0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/41.3+0.3
    Medium2/121.1-0.9
    Low0/210.4+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

    E. Comrie
    WPG · 29/31 · .935
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.7+0.7
    Medium1/121.4+0.4
    Low0/420.7+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

    75 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    STL
    44 shots
    2
    Final
    75 shots
    WPG
    31 shots
    3
    STL attackWPG attack
    STL WPG Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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. Barron
    #36 · C · WPG
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:02 on ice · +2
    H. Fleury
    #24 · D · WPG
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 11:32 on ice · +2
    L. Mailloux
    #23 · D · STL
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:58 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Mar 15
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:22 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 2.5–2.5 expected-goals tie with the Jets at 51% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. But even near-parity masks asymmetrical offensive approaches.

    St. Louis generates shot quality at virtually the same rate as Winnipeg (49.0% xG% vs. 48.0%), yet the Blues edge out the Jets in shot volume (Corsis are 48.0% to 49.0%), a divergence that hints at structure over luck. Both teams' puck-luck metrics (PDO 1.000 for STL, 0.998 for WPG) sit at or near 1.000—neither has banked meaningful positive variance. When two teams are this close in process metrics, goaltending and injury status break the tie.

    Both C. Hellebuyck and J. Hofer are on back-to-backs, which creates uncertainty: a fatigued starter or a surprise backup could swing leverage. Watch for lineup confirmations before puck drop.

    The Blues' top offensive pair—Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 0.86 xG/60, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway (13G, 0.82 xG/60, 10.8% shooting)—outpace Winnipeg's scoring depth. Snuggerud has cashed 2 high-danger chances into goals, while Holloway has 1; both convert at rates well above the league mean. Winnipeg counters with Kyle Connor (25G, 0.83 xG/60, 13.0% shooting) and Nino Niederreiter (6G, 0.87 xG/60, 8.6% shooting), but production imbalance matters. Connor's 25 goals mask a team-wide rebound: he carries far more offensive load than his linemates, whereas St. Louis spreads danger across multiple scoring lanes. Niederreiter has punched in 3 high-danger goals—elite efficiency for a depth winger.

    Defensively, Snuggerud is Winnipeg's assignment, the flashpoint where a younger or overstretched Jets forward could hemorrhage chances. St. Louis has to account for Colin Miller's role—whether Winnipeg leans him on the power play or in a third-pairing rotation will shape the game's flow. At even strength, neither team's support cast suggests dominance, making this a collision between known commodities.

    When models this tight align with overlapping personnel, the verdict is honest: coin flip.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    WPG 51%
    51%
    WPG
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    STL50WPG

    WPG by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.5–2.5 WPG; 19% 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
    STL← edge
    edge →WPG
    49.0%48.0%
    48.0%49.0%
    2.342.34
    2.402.55
    2.001.90
    2.122.10
    1.0000.998

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.998) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    STL
    7-2-1
    +11 GD · 1d rest
    WPG
    5-3-2
    -4 GD · 1d rest
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    WPG PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Things to watch
    • C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Hofer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Hofer
    back-to-back.947 last start
    Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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.966 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
    STL
    Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
    0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
    Dylan Holloway13G 24A
    0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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