Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Thu, Mar 26 · the slate
Breakdown · MIN at FLA

Wild run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Mar 26
MINMinnesota Wild3FLAFlorida Panthers2
The verdict · earned

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

MIN 3 · FLA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:55 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's 3-2 victory over Florida masked a lopsided dominance: the Wild generated 67% of 5v5 expected goals while holding the Panthers to 29% of shot attempts. The real story isn't the scoreline — it's how badly the numbers got away from what actually happened.

The Wild created the more dangerous opportunities, managing 13 high-danger chances to Florida's 5 with a xG-per-shot quality advantage (0.073 vs 0.050). J. Wallstedt responded perfectly, stopping all five Panthers high-danger attempts. D. Tarasov made 47 saves at 0.940, posting +2.45 against expected, and kept Florida competitive despite being thoroughly outplayed.

Minnesota's efficiency problem was the counterweight. The Wild underperformed their xG by 2.45 goals; they scored 3 when 5.45 was expected. Joel Eriksson Ek's goal from the doorstep (P3, 19:55) was one of the chances that fell, but for most of the game, Minnesota had the looks without finishing.

Florida paid the price for finishing. The Panthers went 0-for-5 on high-danger chances — a miss rate that doesn't reflect their usual precision. They were lethal on the rush (2 goals on 21 chances) and created 10 rebound opportunities, but couldn't capitalize on their prime scoring areas.

Minnesota built the dominant game on shot volume and quality, creating chances the expected-goals model loves. Tarasov's heroics kept it close, but luck and goaltending extremes couldn't overcome the gap in play. The Wild simply dictated.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 26
MIN
3
FLA
2

Wild run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.5 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
5.45
FLA
2.69
67% of the chances33%

The board read MIN 3, FLA 2. The chances read MIN 5.5, FLA 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
−2.5
goals above expected
MIN5.45 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA2.69 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. P2 02:47MINM. Foligno1–0
  2. P2 18:25MINR. Hartman2–0
  3. P3 00:42FLAM. Tkachuk2–1
  4. P3 18:47FLAA. EkbladPP2–2
  5. P3 19:55MINJ. Eriksson Ek3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
65 shots
3
Final
97 shots
FLA
32 shots
2
MIN attackFLA attack
MIN FLA Goal
65
shots · 3 in
32
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINFLA
3 / 13
3.09 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.15 xG
0 / 16
1.66 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.22 xG
0 / 46
0.71 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.32 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Tarasov
+2.5
FLA · 47/50
B
J. Wallstedt
+0.7
MIN · 18/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 19–6no goals
    2ndshots 11–8
    1. 02:47MINM. Foligno(Y. Trenin, J. Petry)1–0
    2. 18:25MINR. Hartman2–0
    3rdshots 20–6
    1. 00:42FLAM. Tkachuk(G. Forsling, S. Bennett)2–1
    2. 18:47FLAA. Ekbladpower play(S. Jones, M. Tkachuk)2–2
    3. 19:55MINJ. Eriksson Ek(B. Faber)3–2

    score reads MIN–FLA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.45
    MIN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.003
    MIN puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    58.1%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.45Expected goals2.69
    MIN 67% of the chance quality
    50Shots on goal20
    13High-danger chances5
    75All attempts (Corsi)54
    Adjusted for score: MIN 55% · FLA 45%
    Faceoffs · FLA won38%off46%neu60%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MIN3 / 13 · 3.09 xG
    FLA0 / 5 · 1.15 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MIN0 / 16 · 1.66 xG
    FLA2 / 12 · 1.22 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MIN0 / 46 · 0.71 xG
    FLA0 / 37 · 0.32 xG

    MIN went 0-for-16 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
    MIN
    3 G · 5.45 xG · -2.5
    FLA
    2 G · 2.69 xG · -0.7
    0123456

    MIN finished -2.5 against expected, FLA -0.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MIN
    SNAP1/31
    WRIST2/10
    SLAP0/10
    BACKHAND0/6
    TIP IN0/6
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/10
    FLA
    SNAP0/13
    WRIST0/7
    SLAP1/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN1/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/22
    MIN
    FLA
    Off the rush
    2 G on 29
    2.81 xG
    2 G on 21
    2.05 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 10
    2.02 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.51 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: MIN went 1-for-31, FLA 0-for-13. MIN 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. Wallstedt
    MIN · 18/20 · .900
    +0.7
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.1+1.1
    Medium2/121.2-0.8
    Low0/370.3+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

    D. Tarasov
    FLA · 47/50 · .940
    +2.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/133.1+0.1
    Medium0/161.7+1.7
    Low0/460.7+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

    97 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MIN
    65 shots
    3
    Final
    97 shots
    FLA
    32 shots
    2
    MIN attackFLA attack
    MIN FLA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, FLA 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. Tkachuk
    #19 · L · FLA
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:19 on ice · +2
    B. Faber
    #7 · D · MIN
    0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 24:53 on ice
    A. Ekblad
    #5 · D · FLA
    1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 22:39 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:54 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 MIN 2.5-2.6 FLA game with the Panthers at 50% win probability — about as close to a true pick'em as you'll find.

    Florida is underwater. The Panthers sit at -7 goal differential over their last 10, but this matchup's real tension lives in competing advantages: Minnesota owns a 52.0% 5v5 expected goals share, yet Florida drives 52.0% Corsi%. The Wild are more efficient at generating dangerous chances; the Panthers will control territory and spend time in Minnesota's zone.

    Minnesota's underlying edge is real. At 52.0% xG against Florida's 49.0%, the Wild consistently position better shots and maintain a system advantage over a full game. Their 1.007 PDO — actual to expected shooting ratio — suggests they're earning their results, not riding variance. But raw possession carries weight. A 52.0% Corsi% means Florida will camp your defensive zone, create through volume, and exploit mistakes. If the Panthers steal one off relentless pressure, no one should be shocked.

    The question is whether quality beats quantity. Minnesota has the process edge; Florida has the presence advantage.

    Players to watch: Matt Boldy (22G, 0.89 xG/60, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting) anchors Minnesota's offense, supported by Robby Fabbri (0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A, 6.9% shooting), though Fabbri is marked inactive. For Florida, Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals, 13.1% shooting) leads, with Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17G 9A, 19.5% shooting) as secondary scoring — but Marchand is likely out after missing 20 days.

    Personnel losses flatten competitive edges. Minnesota has been the sharper team all season, but lose Fabbri and you lose offensive depth. Florida's Marchand absence complicates their possession strategy. When both rosters are compromised, even dominant edge metrics collapse.

    This is genuinely 50-50 because neither team can separate on process alone. Minnesota should win on xG%, but Florida's territorial control and Minnesota's injuries create real ambiguity. The model recognizes this: a true coin flip has no answer.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    FLA 50%
    50%
    FLA
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    MIN50FLA

    FLA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.5–2.6 FLA; 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 →FLA
    52.0%49.0%
    48.0%52.0%
    2.552.48
    2.402.56
    2.041.98
    1.932.21
    1.0070.989

    MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 0.989) 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
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    FLA
    5-5-0
    -7 GD · 2d rest
    1.007
    MIN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.989
    FLA 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 49.0%.
    • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Panthers are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    MIN
    Expected in goal
    F. Gustavsson
    2 days rest.833 last start
    Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    FLA
    Expected in goal
    S. Bobrovsky
    2 days rest.852 last start
    Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
    FLA
    Sam Bennett18G 19A
    0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
    Brad Marchand17G 9A
    0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page