Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater

Breakdown · COL at WPG

Avalanche run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Mar 26

COLColorado Avalanche3 WPGWinnipeg Jets2

The verdict · earned

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

COL 3 · WPG 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:04 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

Colorado dominated the scoresheet and everything else. The Avalanche won 3–2, controlled 64% of expected goals (4.84–2.66), and held the Jets to 41% of shot attempts. Yet this wasn't a blowout—it was narrow. Colorado underperformed their xG by 1.84 goals. Hellebuyck kept Winnipeg in it.

The goaltending tells the real story. M. Blackwood was solid (22/24 saves, 0.917 SV%), but C. Hellebuyck stole the show, posting a 0.914 save percentage and stopping 1.84 goals above expected. That 1.84-goal gap—the exact amount Colorado wasted—meant the Avalanche's dominance barely showed on the scoreboard.

Winnipeg's formula: hit the rushes. The Jets generated two goals on 26 rush chances, making every transition count. Mark Scheifele's tip-in (09:39, third period) was the turning point, a goal from the doorstep.

Colorado had the offensive territory but couldn't execute. They created 10 rebound opportunities and converted only two. Winnipeg created five rebound chances and converted none—a sign of Colorado's structural dominance, yet the margin stayed tight because Colorado couldn't finish.

The high-danger chances split perfectly even: 5–5.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 26

COL

WPG

Avalanche run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.8 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

COL

4.84

WPG

2.66

65% of the chances36%

The board read COL 3, WPG 2. The chances read COL 4.8, WPG 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

COL

−1.8

goals above expected

COL4.84 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG2.66 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

P1 09:55WPGM. Scheifele0–1
P1 17:40COLJ. Drury1–1
P3 00:13COLN. MacKinnonPP2–1
P3 03:55COLN. MacKinnon3–1
P3 09:39WPGM. Scheifele3–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

COL

48 shots

Final

88 shots

WPG

40 shots

COL WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

COLWPG

1 / 5

1.05 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.02 xG

2 / 29

3.40 xG

Medium

1 / 8

0.88 xG

0 / 38

0.39 xG

Low

0 / 34

0.76 xG

High-danger looks: COL 1 of 5, WPG 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

C. Hellebuyck

+1.8

WPG · 32/35

M. Blackwood

+0.7

COL · 22/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Jets 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 11–7

09:55WPGM. Scheifele(K. Connor, J. Morrissey)0–1
17:40COLJ. Drury(S. Malinski, P. Kelly)1–1

2ndshots 9–10no goals

3rdshots 15–7

00:13COLN. MacKinnonpower play(N. Kadri, M. Necas)2–1
03:55COLN. MacKinnon(A. Lehkonen, G. Landeskog)3–1
09:39WPGM. Scheifele(C. Perfetti, G. Vilardi)3–2

score reads COL–WPG

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.84

COL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.8

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.999

COL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

60.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.84Expected goals2.66

COL 65% of the chance quality

35Shots on goal24

5High-danger chances5

72All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: COL 60% · WPG 40%

Faceoffs · WPG won53%off61%neu38%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

COL1 / 5 · 1.05 xG

WPG1 / 5 · 1.02 xG

Medium dangermid-range

COL2 / 29 · 3.40 xG

WPG1 / 8 · 0.88 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

COL0 / 38 · 0.39 xG

WPG0 / 34 · 0.76 xG

COL went 2-for-29 from medium danger on 3.40 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 · 4.84 xG · -1.8

WPG

2 G · 2.66 xG · -0.7

0123456

COL finished -1.8 against expected, WPG -0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

COL

WRIST2/20

SLAP0/7

TIP IN1/7

BACKHAND0/7

SNAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/2

BAT0/2

OTHER0/24

WPG

WRIST0/20

SLAP1/9

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/2

SNAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/7

COL

WPG

Off the rush

1 G on 28

2.83 xG

2 G on 26

1.77 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 10

1.70 xG

0 G on 5

0.69 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 2-for-20, WPG 0-for-20. WPG 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

M. Blackwood

COL · 22/24 · .917

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.0+0.0

Medium1/80.9-0.1

Low0/340.8+0.8

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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 32/35 · .914

+1.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.1+0.1

Medium2/293.4+1.4

Low0/380.4+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

COL

48 shots

Final

88 shots

WPG

40 shots

COL WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL left, WPG 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

N. MacKinnon

#29 · C · COL

2 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 24:55 on ice · -1

M. Scheifele

#55 · C · WPG

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 22:27 on ice · +1

K. Connor

#81 · L · WPG

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:06 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, 8:58 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 2.8-2.4 Avalanche victory with Colorado at 56% win probability.

Colorado dominates at 5v5. Expected goals run 57.0% for the Avalanche against 48.0% for Winnipeg—Colorado generates significantly more high-quality chances. Corsi at 57.0% versus 49.0% confirms territorial control.

The Avalanche are running hot on luck. PDO of 1.021 means unsustainable shooting and save rates; Winnipeg's 0.998 leans the opposite direction.

Winnipeg is underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10 games.

C. Hellebuyck faces back-to-back starts. Watch for a backup or visible fatigue.

Players to Watch

Colorado

Artturi Lehkonen: 1.11 xG/60, 18G 22A, 14.9% shooting
Ross Colton: 1.10 xG/60, 7G 15A, 4.9% shooting

Winnipeg

Kyle Connor: 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 13.0% shooting
Nino Niederreiter: 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 8.6% shooting

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 56%

56%

COL

Model favorite

56%

44%

COL50WPG

COL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score COL 2.8–2.4 WPG; 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 →WPG

57.0%48.0%

57.0%49.0%

3.032.34

2.302.55

2.631.90

1.562.10

1.0210.998

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 0.998) 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

+5 GD · 2d rest

WPG

5-3-2

-5 GD · 1d rest

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

WPG 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 48.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

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 48.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Jets are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

COL

Expected in goal

S. Wedgewood

2 days rest.938 last start

Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

back-to-back.963 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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

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

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page