Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Tue, Mar 24 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at DET

Senators steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

FinalTue, Mar 24
OTTOttawa Senators3DETDetroit Red Wings2
The verdict · stolen

The Senators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.67–3.81 and won anyway.

OTT 3 · DET 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:41 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

Ottawa escaped Detroit despite a 59–41 disadvantage in expected goals: 3.81 to 2.67. The Red Wings did everything right and still lost—this was a heist.

The Red Wings dominated the shot map, posting 62% of shot attempts (35–21 on goal) and controlling the majority of high-danger chances at 6–5. Yet the Senators scored three times on 19 rush attempts while the Red Wings managed only two goals on 27. The difference came between the pipes.

L. Ullmark (OTT) delivered the game's defining performance, saving 1.81 goals above expected on 33 stops (0.943 SV%). J. Gibson (DET) went 18 for 21 (0.857 SV%), unable to keep Detroit afloat despite their offensive dominance. The gap between the two performances explained why Detroit's shot advantage didn't translate to points.

The Red Wings' efficiency from the rush masked a deeper problem: they generated high-quality chances but couldn't finish. Crashing hard, they created four rebound opportunities and converted none. Ottawa, meanwhile, struck decisively on the break despite being outshot and outchanced overall. B. Tkachuk (1G, 1A in 15:48) and C. Yakemchuk (1G, 1A in 12:46) each found ways to capitalize. M. Seider (DET) recorded an assist in 28:38, but one point wasn't enough in a game where Detroit needed to overperform to win.

This outcome defied the underlying play. Detroit's 59% xG share and shot-attempt advantage should have yielded a win. Instead, the Senators exploited rush vulnerabilities and rode an elite goaltending display to a 3–2 victory. For Ottawa, it was opportunism. For Detroit, it was a missed chance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 24
OTT
3
DET
2

Senators steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

Chances 2.7 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
2.67
DET
3.81
41% of the chances59%

The board read OTT 3, DET 2. The chances read OTT 2.7, DET 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+0.3
goals above expected
OTT2.67 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
DET3.81 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings 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 17:15OTTB. TkachukPP1–0
  2. P2 09:28OTTC. Yakemchuk2–0
  3. P2 11:05OTTL. Eller3–0
  4. P2 14:50DETD. Shine3–1
  5. P3 04:13DETD. LarkinPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
32 shots
3
Final
83 shots
DET
51 shots
2
OTT attackDET attack
OTT DET Goal
32
shots · 3 in
51
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTDET
0 / 5
1.25 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.32 xG
2 / 9
1.06 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.66 xG
1 / 34
0.36 xG
Low
1 / 43
0.84 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 0 of 5, DET 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
L. Ullmark
+1.8
OTT · 33/35
D
J. Gibson
−0.3
DET · 18/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

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 5–10
  1. 17:15OTTB. Tkachukpower play(T. Stützle, C. Yakemchuk)1–0
2ndshots 10–10
  1. 09:28OTTC. Yakemchuk(A. Zub)2–0
  2. 11:05OTTL. Eller(B. Tkachuk)3–0
  3. 14:50DETD. Shine(S. Edvinsson, M. Seider)3–1
3rdshots 6–15
  1. 04:13DETD. Larkinpower play(A. DeBrincat, L. Raymond)3–2

score reads OTT–DET

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.67
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.031
OTT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.67Expected goals3.81
DET 59% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal35
5High-danger chances6
48All attempts (Corsi)63
Adjusted for score: OTT 40% · DET 60%
Faceoffs · DET won53%off47%neu25%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT0 / 5 · 1.25 xG
DET1 / 6 · 1.32 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT2 / 9 · 1.06 xG
DET0 / 14 · 1.66 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT1 / 34 · 0.36 xG
DET1 / 43 · 0.84 xG

DET went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.66 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 2.67 xG · +0.3
DET
2 G · 3.81 xG · -1.8
012345

OTT finished +0.3 against expected, DET -1.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST0/7
SNAP2/15
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN1/3
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/16
DET
WRIST0/30
SNAP1/7
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN1/3
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/12
OTT
DET
Off the rush
3 G on 19
2.07 xG
2 G on 27
2.36 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.14 xG
0 G on 4
0.84 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 0-for-7, DET 0-for-30. OTT 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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 33/35 · .943
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.3+0.3
Medium0/141.7+1.7
Low1/430.8-0.2

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

J. Gibson
DET · 18/21 · .857
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.3+1.3
Medium2/91.1-0.9
Low1/340.4-0.6

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
32 shots
3
Final
83 shots
DET
51 shots
2
OTT attackDET attack
OTT DET Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
B. Tkachuk
#7 · L · OTT
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:48 on ice · +1
C. Yakemchuk
#58 · D · OTT
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 12:46 on ice · +2
M. Seider
#53 · D · DET
0 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 28:38 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:37 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 sees this as a genuine pick'em: Ottawa at 54% win probability, with a projected 2.6-2.4 scoreline favoring the Senators by the slimmest margin. That near-even split masks a clear edge in one dimension and compensates elsewhere.

Ottawa dominates the underlying play. The Senators control 56.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to Detroit's 49.0%—a decisive advantage in shot quality and volume. That dominance extends to territorial control: the Senators drive Corsis at 53.0% versus Detroit's 49.0%, meaning Ottawa spends more time in the offensive zone and forces fewer defensive retreats. Detroit's PDO sits at 0.985, slightly below the league mean, while Ottawa's is 0.993—a marginal sign that the Senators may be due for positive regression if they maintain this play level.

What keeps Detroit in frame despite being outplayed in structure? Talent and efficiency at the point of attack. Brady Tkachuk leads Ottawa with 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes and carries 11 goals and 20 assists into this matchup, but his 7.5% shooting rate suggests regression risk. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13G 15A, 9.5% shooting) adds secondary firepower. For Detroit, Alex DeBrincat (0.88 xG/60, 17G 28A, 9.0% shooting) operates at higher volume—more goals despite fewer chances generated, a sign of clinical finishing. Marco Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7G 8A, 6.1% shooting) offers a cheaper version of that efficiency.

The defensive weak links are marginal but real: Ottawa's Nick Jensen and Detroit's Axel Sandin-Pellikka will face offensive pressure. The matchup hinge is whether Ottawa's shot-generation edge translates to goals, or whether Detroit's finishing prowess punishes the Senators for ceding clean looks.

Neither team has converted hard-chance or rebound situations at elevated rates—a sign the winner may be the team that makes the fewest high-danger mistakes rather than the one that generates the most scoring opportunities. This suits Detroit's defensive structure.

The 54% lean is warranted but thin. Ottawa's dominance is real. Detroit's finishing could erase it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 54%
54%
OTT
Model favorite
54%
46%
OTT50DET

OTT by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.4 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
OTT← edge
edge →DET
56.0%49.0%
53.0%49.0%
2.662.38
2.122.50
2.181.73
1.992.07
0.9930.985

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.985) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
OTT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
DET
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.985
DET PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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

Back to the front page