Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
Breakdown · MTL at DET

Red Wings hold off the Canadiens

The verdict · earned

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

MTL 1 · DET 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:52 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

Detroit's 3-1 victory masked a shot-attempt deficit: the Red Wings held just 28 shots to Montreal's 33 but controlled 56% of five-on-five expected goals (4.42–3.41).

The underlying advantage ran deeper. Detroit generated far more dangerous looks—0.069 expected goals per shot versus Montreal's 0.052—and converted three of seven high-danger chances. Montreal produced only four such opportunities and finished 0-for-4 in that zone. Detroit also thrived on the rush, converting twice on 22 attempts.

Montreal's goaltending couldn't hold back the tide. J. Dobes stopped 25 of 27 shots (0.926 save percentage) but still underperformed his expected outcome by 2.41 goals—he was asked to do too much against superior shot quality. Detroit's J. Gibson made 32 of 33 saves at 0.970, exceeding expectations by 2.41.

The turning point came in the third period when Andrew Copp's wrist shot from the slot found the back of the net at 19:43.

Both teams underperformed their expected-goal totals—Detroit by 1.42 goals, Montreal by 2.41—but the Canadiens' larger variance gap underscored their inability to punish Detroit's few mistakes.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 19
MTL
1
DET
3

Red Wings hold off the Canadiens

Chances 3.4 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.41
DET
4.42
44% of the chances56%

The board read MTL 1, DET 3. The chances read MTL 3.4, DET 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
−1.4
goals above expected
DET4.42 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL3.41 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canadiens left 2.4 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. P2 17:45MTLJ. SlafkovskýPP1–0
  2. P3 02:14DETJ. Compher1–1
  3. P3 16:35DETA. DeBrincat1–2
  4. P3 19:43DETA. CoppEN1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
51 shots
1
Final
100 shots
DET
49 shots
3
MTL attackDET attack
MTL DET Goal
51
shots · 1 in
49
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLDET
0 / 4
0.94 xG
High danger
3 / 7
2.45 xG
1 / 16
1.75 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.36 xG
0 / 45
0.72 xG
Low
0 / 45
0.60 xG

The Canadiens went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Dobes
+2.4
MTL · 25/27
A
J. Gibson
+2.4
DET · 32/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings hold off the Canadiens

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 12–8no goals
    2ndshots 10–7
    1. 17:45MTLJ. Slafkovskýpower play(C. Caufield, N. Suzuki)1–0
    3rdshots 11–13
    1. 02:14DETJ. Compher(P. Kane, A. DeBrincat)1–1
    2. 16:35DETA. DeBrincat1–2
    3. 19:43DETA. Coppempty net(A. DeBrincat)1–3

    score reads MTL–DET

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.42
    DET chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.4
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.032
    DET puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    49.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.41Expected goals4.42
    DET 56% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal28
    4High-danger chances7
    65All attempts (Corsi)64
    Adjusted for score: MTL 50% · DET 50%
    Faceoffs · DET won36%off53%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MTL0 / 4 · 0.94 xG
    DET3 / 7 · 2.45 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MTL1 / 16 · 1.75 xG
    DET0 / 12 · 1.36 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MTL0 / 45 · 0.72 xG
    DET0 / 45 · 0.60 xG

    DET went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.36 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MTL
    1 G · 3.41 xG · -2.4
    DET
    3 G · 4.42 xG · -1.4
    012345

    MTL finished -2.4 against expected, DET -1.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MTL
    SNAP1/14
    WRIST0/19
    SLAP0/9
    BACKHAND0/2
    TIP IN0/5
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/14
    DET
    SNAP0/20
    WRIST1/12
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND1/7
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED1/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/15
    MTL
    DET
    Off the rush
    1 G on 36
    2.82 xG
    2 G on 22
    2.80 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.28 xG
    1 G on 6
    0.95 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: MTL went 1-for-14, DET 0-for-20. DET scored 2 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. Dobes
    MTL · 25/27 · .926
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/72.5-0.6
    Medium0/121.4+1.4
    Low0/450.6+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

    J. Gibson
    DET · 32/33 · .970
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium1/161.8+0.8
    Low0/450.7+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

    100 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MTL
    51 shots
    1
    Final
    100 shots
    DET
    49 shots
    3
    MTL attackDET attack
    MTL DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, DET 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
    A. DeBrincat
    #93 · R · DET
    1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:11 on ice · +3
    J. Compher
    #37 · L · DET
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 22:08 on ice · +3
    N. Suzuki
    #14 · C · MTL
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:24 on ice · -2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 19
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:51 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 2.5–2.6 goal game with Detroit at 53% win probability—close enough to a true toss-up that most bettors would skip it.

    Montreal and Detroit post identical Corsi% at 49.0%, meaning shot volume is split down the middle. Their expected goal shares sit within a percentage point: MTL 48.0% xG%, DET 49.0% xG%.

    The only separation emerges from PDO. Montreal's 1.018 mark indicates the Canadiens are running hot; that spike historically precedes regression. Detroit's 0.985 sits closer to equilibrium.

    Cole Caufield anchors Montreal's scoring with 33 goals and 16 assists while generating 0.97 xG per 60 minutes at a 20.0% shooting rate—elite on both counts. Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat's 0.88 xG/60, backed by 17 goals, 28 assists, and a 9.0% shooting clip. Caufield's generation outpaces DeBrincat's, but DeBrincat's playmaking gives him broader impact.

    Oliver Kapanen deepens Montreal's depth at 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals, 12 assists, and a 17.8% shooting rate elevated by four high-danger goals. Marco Kasper anchors Detroit's third line at 0.81 xG/60, but with only 7 goals and 8 assists at 6.1% shooting, he's more setup than finisher.

    Neither team generates meaningful high-danger goals or rebounds—both sit at 0% in those categories. That neutralizes the conventional depth advantage. Mike Matheson is Montreal's defensive liability; Axel Sandin-Pellikka drags Detroit's back end.

    The model isn't wrong to see this as a true toss-up. The numbers support that skepticism completely.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DET 53%
    53%
    DET
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    MTL50DET

    DET by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.5–2.6 DET; 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
    MTL← edge
    edge →DET
    48.0%49.0%
    49.0%49.0%
    2.412.38
    2.622.50
    2.241.73
    1.962.07
    1.0180.985

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.985) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    MTL
    5-3-2
    +2 GD · 2d rest
    DET
    4-4-2
    -2 GD · 3d rest
    1.018
    MTL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    MTL
    Expected in goal
    J. Dobes
    2 days rest.929 last start
    Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DET
    Expected in goal
    J. Gibson
    3 days rest.926 last start
    Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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
    MTL
    Cole Caufield33G 16A
    0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
    Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
    0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
    DET
    Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
    0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
    Marco Kasper7G 8A
    0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next