Backcheck
Recap · NJD at DAL

Devils run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 8:47 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
NJD
New Jersey Devils
6
Home
DAL
Dallas Stars
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

5.41Expected goals2.59
68% share for the better side
25Shot attempts (SOG)27
12High-danger chances4
48Corsi (all attempts)65
Score-adjusted: 37% / 63%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Devils won 6-4, but the underlying numbers suggest a worse beatdown: they controlled 68% of expected goals while holding Dallas to just 2.59 xG. The shot-attempt battle told a different story—the Stars managed 52%—revealing a sharp quality gap. New Jersey's shots generated 0.113 expected goals per attempt; Dallas managed 0.040.

That disparity in dangerous areas was extreme. The Devils tallied 12 high-danger chances to Dallas's four, converting five (42%). Dallas found four goals on rush plays but created little elsewhere. The Stars crashed the net effectively, manufacturing four rebound opportunities, but finished on none.

Dougie Hamilton's snap shot from the slot at 19:00 of the third period marked the moment dominance hardened into victory.

Goaltending told the real story. C. DeSmith stopped Dallas decisively: 15 of 16 saves with a 0.938 save percentage that beat his expected outcome by 2.61 goals. He was the only thing standing between Dallas and a rout. J. Oettinger's relief appearance was a disaster: 4 of 8 saves, a 0.500 percentage, and a −2.20 expected-goals deficit in limited action. J. Allen handled the heavier workload for Jersey—23 of 27 saves, 0.852 SV%—but underperformed his xG by 1.41, the one weakness in New Jersey's goaltending.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD5 / 12 · 3.95 xG
DAL1 / 4 · 0.84 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD1 / 11 · 1.24 xG
DAL2 / 11 · 1.18 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 25 · 0.22 xG
DAL1 / 50 · 0.56 xG

NJD went 5-for-12 from high danger on 3.95 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
6 G · 5.41 xG · +0.6
DAL
4 G · 2.59 xG · +1.4
01234567
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. AllenNJD
-1.4
C. DeSmithDAL
+2.6
J. OettingerDAL
-2.2

NJD finished +0.6 against expected, DAL +1.4 — C. DeSmith (DAL) saved 2.6 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
SNAP5/24
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/4
WRIST1/1
SLAP0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/15
DAL
SNAP3/25
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/2
WRIST0/4
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/24
NJD
DAL
Off the rush
4 G on 21 · 3.07 xG
4 G on 23 · 1.98 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.37 xG
0 G on 4 · 0.39 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NJD went 5-for-24, DAL 3-for-25. NJD scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Robertson
#21 · L · DAL
1 G · 2 A · 10 SOG · 21:17 TOI · +1
W. Johnston
#53 · C · DAL
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:50 TOI · +1
T. Harley
#55 · D · DAL
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:07 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • DAL had the shot volume but the chances weren't dangerous.
  • C. DeSmith (DAL) stopped 2.6 goals above expected.
  • J. Allen (NJD) gave up 1.4 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • Open game — 16 high-danger chances combined (DAL 4, NJD 12).
  • NJD had the higher quality looks — 0.113 xG/shot vs 0.040.
  • NJD was clinical in the high-danger zone — 5/12 on HD chances (42%).
  • DAL was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • NJD was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • DAL created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • C. DeSmith (DAL) saved 4.4 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · NJD at DAL · 8:00 PM ET

Devils at Stars: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 8:45 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
DAL
Model favorite
47%
53%
NJD50DAL

DAL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.42.5 DAL; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

NJD← edge
edge →DAL
50.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
51.0%Corsi%47.0%
2.45xGF / 602.36
2.50xGA / 602.29
1.66Goals for / gm2.07
2.23Goals against / gm1.68
0.971PDO — luck, not skill1.024

DAL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.971 vs 1.024) says DAL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a NJD 2.4–2.5 DAL game with the Stars at 53% win probability—this is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

New Jersey holds a 51.0% Corsi% while Dallas sits at 47.0%, but the underlying shot quality tilts the other way: New Jersey's xG% is 50.0% to Dallas's 51.0%. This is a territorial mismatch. The Devils will own the ice; the Stars will make their possessions count.

PDO tells the regression story. New Jersey runs 0.971—cold, due for positive regression—while Dallas has climbed to 1.024. The Stars are running hot and should expect some regression; the Devils, conversely, have been unlucky enough that mean reversion should work in their favor.

The Stars arrive on 2 days of rest. New Jersey comes in on 4 days. Dallas gets the edge there.

For New Jersey, Timo Meier carries 1.08 xG/60 and has posted 13G 15A with 3 high-danger goals and a 6.7% shooting rate. Jack Hughes projects at 0.88 xG/60 with 18G 17A, 1 high-danger goal, and an 11.5% shooting rate—he's overperforming his chances, while Meier is underperforming.

Dallas counters with Jason Robertson at 0.96 xG/60, 25G 21A, 2 high-danger goals, and a 12.4% shooting rate. Michael Bunting carries 0.83 xG/60 with 8G 14A and 7.6% shooting. Robertson is a pure volume player running sustainably.

Structural vulnerability: Johnathan Kovacevic is a defensive weak link for New Jersey; Tyler Myers fills that role for Dallas. Both teams generate minimal high-danger or rebound chances, so execution at the margins will matter more than chance creation.

The edge? Dallas's slightly cleaner underlying shot quality and fresher legs are real, but New Jersey's territorial control and due-for-regression PDO make this a true toss-up. The Stars' 53% doesn't feel like a lock. This is a line to respect, not exploit.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters