Motion-blurred skater in a blue sweater
Breakdown · NJD at NYR

Rangers pull away from the Devils

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 1 · NYR 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:47 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

The Rangers won 4-1 despite matching the Devils on shot attempts (23 each)—a seeming paradox resolved by efficiency. New York generated 49% more expected goals per shot attempt (0.076 vs 0.051 xG/shot), a quality gap that explains how even volume produced a lopsided scoreline.

The Rangers rolled to a 57–43 expected goals advantage (4.49–3.39), backed by an overwhelming high-danger chance split of 8–2. Mika Zibanejad's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 03:49) was the turning point—a goal that crystallized New York's efficiency. I. Shesterkin (NYR) made 22 saves on 23 shots (0.957 SV%), stopping 2.4 goals above expected. The Devils underperformed their xG by 2.4 goals, a wasted buildup of dangerous chances.

A. Fox (NYR) recorded two assists over 22:37, orchestrating the offense. C. Brown (NJD) scored New Jersey's lone goal in 21:06, but L. Hughes's one assist in 25:05 couldn't generate momentum. J. Markstrom (NJD) made 19 of 23 saves (0.826 SV%), a capable performance undermined by the quality gap in front of him.

The Rangers' dominance wasn't built on volume—it was built on efficiency.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 31
NJD
1
NYR
4

Rangers pull away from the Devils

Chances 3.4 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Rangers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
3.39
NYR
4.49
43% of the chances57%

The board read NJD 1, NYR 4. The chances read NJD 3.4, NYR 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NYR
−0.5
goals above expected
NYR4.49 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD3.39 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Devils left 2.4 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 08:14NYRC. Sheary0–1
  2. P1 13:39NYRJ. MillerPP0–2
  3. P2 00:51NJDC. BrownPP1–2
  4. P2 11:12NYRJ. Chmelar1–3
  5. P3 03:49NYRM. Zibanejad1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
47 shots
1
Final
94 shots
NYR
47 shots
4
NJD attackNYR attack
NJD NYR Goal
47
shots · 1 in
47
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDNYR
0 / 2
0.45 xG
High danger
1 / 8
1.99 xG
1 / 19
2.23 xG
Medium
2 / 19
2.01 xG
0 / 45
0.71 xG
Low
1 / 32
0.48 xG

High-danger looks: NJD 0 of 2, NYR 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
I. Shesterkin
+2.4
NYR · 22/23
B
J. Markstrom
+0.5
NJD · 19/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Rangers pull away from the Devils

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 5–8
  1. 08:14NYRC. Sheary(T. Kartye, W. Borgen)0–1
  2. 13:39NYRJ. Millerpower play(A. Lafrenière, A. Fox)0–2
2ndshots 13–13
  1. 00:51NJDC. Brownpower play(N. Hischier, L. Hughes)1–2
  2. 11:12NYRJ. Chmelar(B. Schneider)1–3
3rdshots 5–2
  1. 03:49NYRM. Zibanejad(G. Perreault, A. Fox)1–4

score reads NJD–NYR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.49
NYR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.5
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.053
NYR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.39Expected goals4.49
NYR 57% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal23
2High-danger chances8
66All attempts (Corsi)59
Adjusted for score: NJD 58% · NYR 42%
Faceoffs · NYR won31%off53%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD0 / 2 · 0.45 xG
NYR1 / 8 · 1.99 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD1 / 19 · 2.23 xG
NYR2 / 19 · 2.01 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 45 · 0.71 xG
NYR1 / 32 · 0.48 xG

NJD went 1-for-19 from medium danger on 2.23 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
1 G · 3.39 xG · -2.4
NYR
4 G · 4.49 xG · -0.5
012345

NJD finished -2.4 against expected, NYR -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
WRIST0/28
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND1/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/19
NYR
WRIST2/22
TIP IN1/10
SLAP0/10
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND1/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/12
NJD
NYR
Off the rush
0 G on 30
1.86 xG
3 G on 29
3.35 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.65 xG
1 G on 3
0.50 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 0-for-28, NYR 2-for-22. NYR 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
J. Markstrom
NJD · 19/23 · .826
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/82.0+1.0
Medium2/192.0+0.0
Low1/320.5-0.5

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

I. Shesterkin
NYR · 22/23 · .957
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium1/192.2+1.2
Low0/450.7+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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NJD
47 shots
1
Final
94 shots
NYR
47 shots
4
NJD attackNYR attack
NJD NYR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD left, NYR 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
A. Fox
#23 · D · NYR
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:37 on ice · +1
L. Hughes
#43 · D · NJD
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 25:05 on ice
C. Brown
#16 · R · NJD
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 21:06 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 31
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:45 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 dead even proposition. New Jersey and New York each have legitimate claims to the edge, and the projection system has split the difference: Rangers at 51% win probability. That's as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The five-on-five numbers explain why. New Jersey holds a thin edge in volume: 50.0% expected goals and 51.0% Corsi to the Rangers' 48.0% and 49.0%. But volume doesn't determine outcomes; luck does, at least in the short term. The Devils are running cold at 0.971 PDO, a sign they're due for positive regression. The Rangers sit at 1.009, suggesting they're either hot or lucky—and regression cuts both ways.

The offensive edge leans toward New Jersey. Timo Meier leads with 1.08 expected goals per 60 minutes, 13 goals, and 15 assists, including 3 high-danger chances. Jack Hughes follows at 0.88 xG per 60 with 18 goals and 17 assists, though he's posted just 1 high-danger goal. His 11.5% shooting rate suggests that run is sustainable. For New York, Adam Sykora carries 0.91 xG per 60 with only 3 goals and 1 assist but a striking 20.0% shooting rate—a number that will likely regress. Gabe Perreault adds secondary scoring at 0.79 xG per 60, posting 8 goals, 11 assists, and 2 high-danger chances with a more measured 13.1% shooting rate.

Neither team is converting high-danger chances; both sit at 0% for high-danger and rebound scoring. The margin, then, may rest on which team capitalizes first on opportunities—not which team creates them.

Defensively, both clubs carry vulnerabilities. Johnathan Kovacevic projects as New Jersey's weak link; Vincent Iorio is New York's. Whichever back line breaks first could swing the game.

The projection system's indifference makes sense. A 51% Rangers edge is barely better than a coin flip. Both teams generate offense at nearly identical rates, both carry defensive liabilities, and both have regression vectors pointing in different directions. The Devils have the volume edge and upside if PDO normalizes. The Rangers have the recent results and momentum of a hot streak. In a game this evenly matched, opportunism and execution matter more than underlying talent—and those are things the model can't predict.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NYR 51%
51%
NYR
Model favorite
49%
51%
NJD50NYR

NYR by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NJD 2.4–2.5 NYR; 19% 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 →NYR
50.0%48.0%
51.0%49.0%
2.452.26
2.502.40
1.661.88
2.231.90
0.9711.009

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.971 vs 1.009) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NJD
6-4-0
+4 GD · 2d rest
NYR
4-5-1
+0 GD · 2d rest
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.009
NYR 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
  • 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
2 days rest.903 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NYR
Expected in goal
I. Shesterkin
2 days rest.963 last start
Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 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
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
NYR
Adam Sykora3G 1A
0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
Gabe Perreault8G 11A
0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next