Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
Breakdown · NJD at NSH

Devils run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 4 · NSH 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:06 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

New Jersey's 4–2 win over Nashville understates how thoroughly they dominated. The Devils controlled 67% of expected goals (5.20–2.51), a split that reflects not just shot volume but shot quality: New Jersey produced 0.090 expected goals per attempt while Nashville managed 0.051.

That quality differential shows up in the specifics. The Devils were lethally efficient on the rush, scoring 4 goals on 27 chances, while Nashville converted only 2 on 20. New Jersey generated eight high-danger chances to Nashville's four. The shot-attempt count (30–17) confirmed what the numbers told you: the Predators had no answer.

Nashville's survival owed entirely to goaltending. J. Annunen posted a 0.897 save percentage and stopped 2.2 goals above expected—a performance that kept a blowout from looking like one. Without that outperformance, the margin would have matched the underlying dominance.

New Jersey left a goal on the table themselves. They scored only 4 times on 5.20 expected goals, a 1.20-goal underperformance that J. Markstrom's solid outing (15/17 saves, +0.51 vs expected) could not overcome on the other end. The turning point was Timo Meier's wrist shot from the doorstep in the third period—exactly the kind of dangerous look New Jersey generated with frequency.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 26
NJD
4
NSH
2

Devils run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.2 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
5.20
NSH
2.51
67% of the chances33%

The board read NJD 4, NSH 2. The chances read NJD 5.2, NSH 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
−1.2
goals above expected
NJD5.20 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH2.51 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 18:02NJDJ. Bratt1–0
  2. P2 09:13NJDN. Hischier2–0
  3. P2 11:09NSHR. Schaefer2–1
  4. P2 13:00NSHS. Stamkos2–2
  5. P3 14:07NJDN. HischierPP3–2
  6. P3 19:27NJDT. MeierEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
44 shots
4
Final
74 shots
NSH
30 shots
2
NJD attackNSH attack
NJD NSH Goal
44
shots · 4 in
30
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDNSH
1 / 8
3.23 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.83 xG
3 / 14
1.41 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.30 xG
0 / 36
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.38 xG

High-danger looks: NJD 1 of 8, NSH 2 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Annunen
+2.2
NSH · 26/29
B
J. Markstrom
+0.5
NJD · 15/17
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Devils run the Predators 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 9–5
  1. 18:02NJDJ. Bratt(J. Hughes, J. Siegenthaler)1–0
2ndshots 10–6
  1. 09:13NJDN. Hischier(J. Bratt, S. Nemec)2–0
  2. 11:09NSHR. Schaefer(F. Svechkov, N. Hague)2–1
  3. 13:00NSHS. Stamkos(L. Evangelista)2–2
3rdshots 11–6
  1. 14:07NJDN. Hischierpower play(J. Hughes, J. Bratt)3–2
  2. 19:27NJDT. Meierempty net(C. Brown, J. Siegenthaler)4–2

score reads NJD–NSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.20
NJD chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.028
NJD puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.20Expected goals2.51
NJD 67% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal17
8High-danger chances4
58All attempts (Corsi)49
Adjusted for score: NJD 52% · NSH 48%
Faceoffs · NSH won43%off31%neu22%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD1 / 8 · 3.23 xG
NSH2 / 4 · 0.83 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD3 / 14 · 1.41 xG
NSH0 / 11 · 1.30 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 36 · 0.56 xG
NSH0 / 34 · 0.38 xG

NJD went 1-for-8 from high danger on 3.23 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
4 G · 5.20 xG · -1.2
NSH
2 G · 2.51 xG · -0.5
0123456

NJD finished -1.2 against expected, NSH -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
WRIST1/25
SLAP0/5
TIP IN1/3
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND0/4
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED2/2
OTHER0/14
NSH
WRIST1/16
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND1/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/19
NJD
NSH
Off the rush
4 G on 27
3.14 xG
2 G on 20
2.13 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.82 xG
0 G on 1
0.14 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 1-for-25, NSH 1-for-16. NJD scored 4 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. Markstrom
NJD · 15/17 · .882
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/40.8-1.2
Medium0/111.3+1.3
Low0/340.4+0.4

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. Annunen
NSH · 26/29 · .897
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/83.2+2.2
Medium3/141.4-1.6
Low0/360.6+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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NJD
44 shots
4
Final
74 shots
NSH
30 shots
2
NJD attackNSH attack
NJD NSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD left, NSH 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
J. Bratt
#63 · L · NJD
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:41 on ice · +1
J. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 7 SOG · 23:08 on ice · +1
J. Siegenthaler
#71 · D · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:03 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, 8:57 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 to 2.6 expected goals per side, with Nashville at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as hockey gets.

New Jersey and Nashville are essentially matched at five-on-five. The Devils own 50.0% expected goals and 51.0% Corsi; the Predators counter with 49.0% xG and 50.0% Corsi—margins measured in single percentage points.

New Jersey's PDO sits at 0.971, indicating the Devils are running cold and due for positive regression. Nashville's 0.992 rests closer to equilibrium.

Both teams face a goaltending dilemma. J. Saros and J. Allen are each on a back-to-back, meaning either could start a backup or push through on tired legs.

The deciding factor is individual creation. Timo Meier generates 1.08 expected goals per 60 minutes with 13 goals, 15 assists, and 3 high-danger goals on 6.7% shooting. Jack Hughes posts 0.88 xG/60 and has scored 18 goals, 17 assists, and 1 high-danger goal on 11.5% shooting.

Nashville's complement is Zachary L'Heureux and Filip Forsberg. L'Heureux produces 0.85 xG/60, 4 goals, 0 assists, and 1 high-danger goal on 16.0% shooting. Forsberg has recorded 23 goals, 17 assists, and 4 high-danger goals at 0.80 xG/60 and 13.6% shooting.

Defensive frailties exist on both rosters. Johnathan Kovacevic is New Jersey's weak link. Jonathan Marchessault serves that purpose for Nashville.

Neither team has converted or faced high-danger or rebound goals at measurable rates—both at 0%—which frames this as a tight, systemic contest rather than a variance-driven one.

New Jersey edges forward on the regression angle and superior underlying creation. Nashville stays within a single percentage point on most numbers and carries the tactical variable of the back-to-back. The game remains a genuine split.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NSH 52%
52%
NSH
Model favorite
48%
52%
NJD50NSH

NSH by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NJD 2.5–2.6 NSH; 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
NJD← edge
edge →NSH
50.0%49.0%
51.0%50.0%
2.452.48
2.502.58
1.661.84
2.232.21
0.9710.992

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.971 vs 0.992) says NSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NJD
7-3-0
+11 GD · 1d rest
NSH
7-2-1
+11 GD · 1d rest
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.992
NSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • J. Saros is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Allen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NJD
Expected in goal
J. Allen
back-to-back.852 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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.

NSH
Expected in goal
J. Saros
back-to-back.900 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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.

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
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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next