Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
Breakdown · COL at WSH

Avalanche edge the Capitals in overtime

The verdict · coin flip

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

COL 3 · WSH 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:27 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

Washington generated superior expected goals and more high-danger chances but lost 3-2 in overtime — M. Blackwood's net turned away every chance that mattered.

The Capitals held 48% of shot attempts but generated 3.07 expected goals, a quality advantage. Colorado generated 2.88 xG on 24 shots. Washington's danger per attempt was higher: 0.073 xG per shot versus Colorado's 0.052. Yet on high-danger chances, Washington managed 0-for-5. Colorado converted 2-for-4.

M. Blackwood stopped 1.07 goals above expected, including a perfect 5-for-5 save rate on high-danger shots. L. Thompson saw more danger per attempt but saved only 21 of 24.

The Capitals' efficiency off the rush (2 goals on 26 chances) matched Colorado's (3 goals on 25 chances). The advantage dissolved in the scoring areas. Washington generated 5 high-danger chances to Colorado's 4. B. Nelson tipped in at 01:22 of overtime — the game's final word.

This was a variance clinic. Washington's underlying metrics suggested they'd escape with a point. The Capitals had the shot quality and quantity to demand it. Instead, they encountered an opponent that didn't need many chances, plus a goaltender who stopped everything dangerous.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 22
COL
3
WSH
2

Avalanche edge the Capitals in overtime

Chances 2.9 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Avalanche took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
2.88
WSH
3.07
48% of the chances52%

The board read COL 3, WSH 2. The chances read COL 2.9, WSH 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
+0.1
goals above expected
COL2.88 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WSH3.07 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 11:53WSHJ. Sourdif0–1
  2. P3 01:05COLG. Landeskog1–1
  3. P3 06:03COLN. Roy2–1
  4. P3 14:17WSHA. OvechkinPP2–2
  5. OT 01:22COLB. Nelson3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
38 shots
3
Final
73 shots
WSH
35 shots
2
COL attackWSH attack
COL WSH Goal
38
shots · 3 in
35
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLWSH
2 / 4
1.01 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.35 xG
1 / 13
1.39 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.19 xG
0 / 38
0.48 xG
Low
0 / 25
0.54 xG

The Capitals went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
M. Blackwood
+1.1
COL · 20/22
C
L. Thompson
−0.1
WSH · 21/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche edge the Capitals 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 6–8
  1. 11:53WSHJ. Sourdif(C. McMichael, M. Roy)0–1
2ndshots 8–7no goals
    3rdshots 7–7
    1. 01:05COLG. Landeskog(M. Necas)1–1
    2. 06:03COLN. Roy(Z. Bardakov)2–1
    3. 14:17WSHA. Ovechkinpower play(D. Strome, C. Hutson)2–2
    OTshots 3–0
    1. 01:22COLB. Nelson(M. Necas, D. Toews)3–2

    score reads COL–WSH

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.88
    COL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.007
    COL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    56.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.88Expected goals3.07
    WSH 52% of the chance quality
    24Shots on goal22
    4High-danger chances5
    55All attempts (Corsi)42
    Adjusted for score: COL 58% · WSH 42%
    Faceoffs · WSH won56%off33%neu29%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    COL2 / 4 · 1.01 xG
    WSH0 / 5 · 1.35 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    COL1 / 13 · 1.39 xG
    WSH2 / 12 · 1.19 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    COL0 / 38 · 0.48 xG
    WSH0 / 25 · 0.54 xG

    WSH went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.35 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    COL
    3 G · 2.88 xG · +0.1
    WSH
    2 G · 3.07 xG · -1.1
    01234

    COL finished +0.1 against expected, WSH -1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    COL
    SNAP2/24
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN1/3
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    WRIST0/0
    OTHER0/17
    WSH
    SNAP1/25
    SLAP1/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/1
    BAT0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    WRIST0/1
    OTHER0/7
    COL
    WSH
    Off the rush
    3 G on 25
    2.53 xG
    2 G on 26
    2.61 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.14 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.36 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: COL went 2-for-24, WSH 1-for-25. COL 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
    M. Blackwood
    COL · 20/22 · .909
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.4+1.4
    Medium2/121.2-0.8
    Low0/250.5+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

    L. Thompson
    WSH · 21/24 · .875
    -0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/41.0-1.0
    Medium1/131.4+0.4
    Low0/380.5+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

    73 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    COL
    38 shots
    3
    Final
    73 shots
    WSH
    35 shots
    2
    COL attackWSH attack
    COL WSH Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — COL left, WSH 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. Necas
    #88 · C · COL
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:36 on ice · +1
    B. Nelson
    #11 · C · COL
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:13 on ice · +1
    C. McMichael
    #24 · L · WSH
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:03 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Mar 22
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:24 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 2.8-2.6 game with the Avalanche at 54% win probability—essentially a pick'em.

    Colorado owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Avalanche generate 57.0% xG and drive 57.0% Corsi, controlling both territory and shot quality. Washington's 50.0% xG reflects a team playing catchup. That gap would usually settle a matchup decisively. Not this one, because both teams are running above expected luck.

    Colorado's 1.021 PDO and Washington's 1.018 PDO mean both are converting at unsustainable rates and allowing fewer goals than their defense should permit. In a true coin flip, the expectation is both regress equally. When Colorado's superior play meets equal regression for both teams, the advantage cancels.

    The scorers demonstrate this distribution. Artturi Lehkonen carries Colorado at 1.11 xG/60 with 18 goals and 14.9% shooting—he's earned his output. Ross Colton, at 1.10 xG/60, has only 7 goals on 4.9% shooting, leaving room for variance in either direction. Alex Ovechkin leads Washington at 19 goals, but his 0.97 xG/60 and 13.8% shooting rate show he's running ahead of his opportunities. Anthony Beauvillier, at 14 goals on 10.4% shooting, similarly exceeds his 0.89 xG/60.

    M. Blackwood's back-to-back status is the sole lever. If Washington starts a backup or Blackwood plays tired, Colorado gets an edge. If Blackwood is fresh, the scales balance.

    The verdict: when unsustainably hot teams both cool down, the one with superior underlying play wins. When luck persists, the lucky team does. This is a matchup where a coin flip is the most honest forecast.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    COL 54%
    54%
    COL
    Model favorite
    54%
    46%
    COL50WSH

    COL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score COL 2.8–2.6 WSH; 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
    COL← edge
    edge →WSH
    57.0%50.0%
    57.0%49.0%
    3.032.62
    2.302.62
    2.632.18
    1.561.79
    1.0211.018

    COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 1.018) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    COL
    6-3-1
    +6 GD · 1d rest
    WSH
    5-4-1
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    1.021
    COL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.018
    WSH 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 50.0%.
    • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
    • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • M. Blackwood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    COL
    Expected in goal
    M. Blackwood
    back-to-back.950 last start
    Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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.

    WSH
    Expected in goal
    L. Thompson
    2 days rest.968 last start
    Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 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
    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
    WSH
    Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
    0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
    Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
    0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next