Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater

Breakdown · MIN at CHI

Wild edge the Blackhawks in overtime

Final / OTTue, Mar 17

MINMinnesota Wild4 CHIChicago Blackhawks3

The verdict · earned

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

MIN 4 · CHI 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:37 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

Minnesota dominated the underlying play and closed out 4-3 in overtime, a result their 58% expected-goals share (4.25–3.07) confirmed. The Wild controlled both shot volume (37–26) and high-danger chances (6–5). Their possession profile suggested a more decisive result than the one-goal margin delivered.

Efficiency on the rush separated the teams. Minnesota buried three of 24 rush chances—a clip that mattered in a one-goal game. Chicago created four rebound opportunities (one converted), while Minnesota built ten (one converted). The identical conversion rate belied Minnesota's structural dominance.

The goaltending split was peculiar: F. Gustavsson (MIN) posted a 0.875 save percentage (21/24) while S. Knight (CHI) held steady at 0.892 (33/37). Chicago's starter outperformed Minnesota's, yet the Wild won anyway. J. Wallstedt's brief appearance (2/2) carried a +3.1 goals-above-expected bump—the kind of marginal performance that shifts overtime games.

Mats Zuccarello sealed it with a snap shot from the high slot at 03:09 of overtime. Chicago posted 3.07 expected goals (42% of the total), but Minnesota's superiority in volume, efficiency, and shot quality made the result inevitable.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Mar 17

MIN

CHI

Wild edge the Blackhawks in overtime

Chances 4.3 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

MIN

4.25

CHI

3.07

58% of the chances42%

The board read MIN 4, CHI 3. The chances read MIN 4.3, CHI 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

MIN

−0.3

goals above expected

MIN4.25 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI3.07 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

P1 06:17MINR. Hartman1–0
P1 07:58MINM. Johansson2–0
P1 10:47CHIL. Crevier2–1
P1 18:30MINV. TarasenkoPP3–1
P2 14:35CHIR. Greene3–2
P3 18:20CHIF. Nazar3–3
OT 03:09MINM. Zuccarello4–3

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

MIN

48 shots

Final

91 shots

CHI

43 shots

MIN CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

MINCHI

2 / 6

1.30 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.22 xG

2 / 21

2.51 xG

Medium

1 / 11

1.15 xG

0 / 36

0.45 xG

Low

1 / 41

0.70 xG

The Wild buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A+

J. Wallstedt

+3.1

MIN · 2/2

S. Knight

+0.3

CHI · 33/37

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Wild 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 16–7

06:17MINR. Hartman(K. Kaprizov, B. Faber)1–0
07:58MINM. Johansson(M. McCarron, J. Brodin)2–0
10:47CHIL. Crevier(F. Nazar, W. Kaiser)2–1
18:30MINV. Tarasenkopower play(M. Johansson, B. Faber)3–1

2ndshots 10–11

14:35CHIR. Greene(C. Bedard, L. Crevier)3–2

3rdshots 6–7

18:20CHIF. Nazar(C. Bedard, A. Levshunov)3–3

OTshots 5–1

03:09MINM. Zuccarello(M. Johansson, B. Faber)4–3

score reads MIN–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.25

MIN chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.3

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.011

MIN puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

52.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.25Expected goals3.07

MIN 58% of the chance quality

37Shots on goal26

6High-danger chances5

63All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: MIN 48% · CHI 52%

Faceoffs · CHI won50%off38%neu36%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

MIN2 / 6 · 1.30 xG

CHI1 / 5 · 1.22 xG

Medium dangermid-range

MIN2 / 21 · 2.51 xG

CHI1 / 11 · 1.15 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

MIN0 / 36 · 0.45 xG

CHI1 / 41 · 0.70 xG

MIN went 2-for-6 from high danger on 1.30 expected goals — 0.7 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

MIN

4 G · 4.25 xG · -0.3

CHI

3 G · 3.07 xG · -0.1

012345

MIN finished -0.3 against expected, CHI -0.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

MIN

WRIST1/24

SNAP3/10

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/6

POKE0/1

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/15

CHI

WRIST1/27

SNAP1/3

SLAP1/8

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/1

POKE0/0

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/14

MIN

CHI

Off the rush

3 G on 24

2.24 xG

1 G on 25

1.80 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 10

1.65 xG

1 G on 4

0.95 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 1-for-24, CHI 1-for-27. MIN 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. Wallstedt

MIN · 2/2 · 1.000

+3.1

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low1/410.7-0.3

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

F. Gustavsson

MIN · 21/24 · .875

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low1/410.7-0.3

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

S. Knight

CHI · 33/37 · .892

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/61.3-0.7

Medium2/212.5+0.5

Low0/360.5+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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

MIN

48 shots

Final

91 shots

CHI

43 shots

MIN CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, CHI 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

B. Faber

#7 · D · MIN

0 G · 3 A · 5 SOG · 21:48 on ice

M. Johansson

#90 · L · MIN

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:56 on ice · +2

C. Bedard

#98 · C · CHI

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 23:05 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 17

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:36 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

Minnesota's superiority on the underlying numbers is stark enough to be predictive. The model projects 56% win probability for the Wild, grounded in a 52.0% xG% advantage—a 2.8-2.4 expected-goals edge over 60 minutes.

Minnesota's edge is structural, not fluky. The Wild own a 48.0% Corsi%, controlling play across the ice and benefiting from marginally better luck via a 1.007 PDO to Chicago's 0.996. Chicago's recent form is dire: the Blackhawks sit at -11 goal differential over their last 10 games, a deficit that signals a team hemorrhaging in close contests.

The gap in expected goals reveals where the money is. Chicago cannot generate quality chances at scale, and their scoring depth cannot paper over that shortfall. Tyler Bertuzzi's 18.0% shooting rate and Connor Bedard's 11.8% rate are both above sustainable levels; regression will bite hard without volume behind them. Minnesota generates cleaner plays at higher volume, a structural advantage that typically survives a single game.

Players to Watch

MIN

Matt Boldy — 0.89 xG/60, 22G 18A, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting
Robby Fabbri — 0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A, 1 HD goal, 6.9% shooting

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi — 0.85 xG/60, 20G 15A, 7 HD goals, 18.0% shooting
Connor Bedard — 0.82 xG/60, 17G 27A, 5 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 56%

56%

MIN

Model favorite

56%

44%

MIN50CHI

MIN by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MIN 2.8–2.4 CHI; 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

MIN← edge

edge →CHI

52.0%42.0%

48.0%46.0%

2.552.17

2.402.94

2.041.84

1.932.41

1.0070.996

MIN holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 0.996) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

MIN

4-4-2

+3 GD · 2d rest

CHI

3-5-2

-11 GD · 2d rest

1.007

MIN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.

Things to watch

The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Blackhawks are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

MIN

Expected in goal

J. Wallstedt

2 days rest.880 last start

Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

2 days rest.875 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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

MIN

Matt Boldy22G 18A

0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Robby Fabbri2G 3A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page