Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
Breakdown · WPG at CHI

Jets edge the Blackhawks in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 4 · CHI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:50 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 Blackhawks created the higher-quality chances—4 high-danger opportunities to Winnipeg's 3—yet fell 4–3 in overtime.

Winnipeg's underlying advantage was decisive at 5v5. The Jets commanded 58% of expected goals (3.02–2.21), a margin that aligned with their scoreline despite the Blackhawks' edge in chance quality. Both teams overperformed their xG significantly: Chicago by 0.79 goals, Winnipeg by 0.98, suggesting variance played a role.

Winnipeg's conversion came from execution more than luck. The Jets were clinical off the rush, scoring 3 goals on 25 chances—their most efficient channel. They also crashed effectively, generating 3 rebound opportunities and converting 1, a simple formula that high-danger metrics miss. The Blackhawks, meanwhile, were efficient in the one area they dominated: they converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%), a lethal rate that nearly carried them.

The overtime winner came at 00:33 via Kyle Connor's wrist shot from the slot.

Both goalies underperformed. C. Hellebuyck finished 18/21 (0.857 SV%), 0.79 below expected—exactly the margin Chicago overshot xG. S. Knight allowed 4 on 24 shots (0.833 SV%), 0.98 below expected, the amount Winnipeg overperformed.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 31
WPG
4
CHI
3

Jets edge the Blackhawks in overtime

Chances 3.0 – 2.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
3.02
CHI
2.21
58% of the chances42%

The board read WPG 4, CHI 3. The chances read WPG 3.0, CHI 2.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
+1.0
goals above expected
WPG3.02 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.21 expected · 3 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 04:42CHIA. Frondell0–1
  2. P2 01:06WPGJ. Morrissey1–1
  3. P2 11:19WPGC. PerfettiPP2–1
  4. P2 11:57WPGI. Rosen3–1
  5. P2 13:26CHIT. Bertuzzi3–2
  6. P3 09:46CHIT. Bertuzzi3–3
  7. OT 00:33WPGK. Connor4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
38 shots
4
Final
69 shots
CHI
31 shots
3
WPG attackCHI attack
WPG CHI Goal
38
shots · 4 in
31
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGCHI
2 / 3
0.71 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.84 xG
2 / 15
1.84 xG
Medium
1 / 8
0.83 xG
0 / 31
0.47 xG
Low
0 / 31
0.54 xG

The Jets buried 2 of 3 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D-
C. Hellebuyck
−0.8
WPG · 18/21
D-
S. Knight
−1.0
CHI · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets edge the Blackhawks in overtime

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 6–9
  1. 04:42CHIA. Frondell(I. Mikheyev, L. Crevier)0–1
2ndshots 15–2
  1. 01:06WPGJ. Morrissey(K. Connor, M. Scheifele)1–1
  2. 11:19WPGC. Perfettipower play(A. Iafallo, M. Scheifele)2–1
  3. 11:57WPGI. Rosen(D. Zhilkin, N. Pionk)3–1
  4. 13:26CHIT. Bertuzzi3–2
3rdshots 2–10
  1. 09:46CHIT. Bertuzzi(I. Mikheyev, L. Crevier)3–3
OTshots 1–0
  1. 00:33WPGK. Connor(M. Scheifele, J. Morrissey)4–3

score reads WPG–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.02
WPG chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.012
WPG puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
53.3%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.02Expected goals2.21
WPG 58% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal21
3High-danger chances4
49All attempts (Corsi)43
Adjusted for score: WPG 53% · CHI 47%
Faceoffs · CHI won22%off33%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG2 / 3 · 0.71 xG
CHI2 / 4 · 0.84 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG2 / 15 · 1.84 xG
CHI1 / 8 · 0.83 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 31 · 0.47 xG
CHI0 / 31 · 0.54 xG

WPG went 2-for-3 from high danger on 0.71 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
4 G · 3.02 xG · +1.0
CHI
3 G · 2.21 xG · +0.8
012345

WPG finished +1.0 against expected, CHI +0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
WRIST2/20
SNAP1/4
BACKHAND1/5
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
CHI
WRIST1/21
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND1/3
TIP IN0/0
SLAP0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/12
WPG
CHI
Off the rush
3 G on 25
2.32 xG
1 G on 22
1.46 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.38 xG
0 G on 1
0.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 2-for-20, CHI 1-for-21. WPG 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
C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 18/21 · .857
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/40.8-1.2
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low0/310.5+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

S. Knight
CHI · 20/24 · .833
-1.0
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/30.7-1.3
Medium2/151.8-0.2
Low0/310.5+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

69 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
38 shots
4
Final
69 shots
CHI
31 shots
3
WPG attackCHI attack
WPG CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, CHI 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. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 20:32 on ice · -1
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:42 on ice · +2
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:07 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, 10:00 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 a 2.6–2.5 game favoring Winnipeg by the thinnest margin: 53% win probability. That's not a strong opinion; that's a coin flip.

It's also accurate. The Jets control 5v5 play with 48.0% expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%, enough to claim the underlying advantage. But Niederreiter's shot conversion at 8.6% sits well below Connor's 13.0%—a spread that suggests shooting touch will decide this.

The Blackhawks are underwater at −17 goal differential over their last 10, which explains the tightness. Both teams oscillate between periods of control and periods where nothing materializes.

Nino Niederreiter anchors Winnipeg's attack at 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes, a volume that supports his 6 goals and 3 high-danger chances. Kyle Connor bridges the gap differently: at 0.83 xG/60, he converts at 13.0%, and his 25 goals and only 2 high-danger tallies suggest his scoring comes from volume rather than premium situations.

Tyler Bertuzzi offers Chicago's counter-punch: 0.85 xG/60, 20 goals, 7 high-danger chances, and 18.0% shooting. Connor Bedard contributes similarly (0.82 xG/60, 17 goals, 5 high-danger chances, 11.8% shooting), both relying on high-volume generation and above-average conversion.

Colin Miller is Winnipeg's defensive weak link; Anton Frondell for Chicago.

This is genuinely a toss-up. The model isn't hedging; it's reflecting the tension between what the underlying numbers say (slight Winnipeg edge) and what recent results suggest (nothing's predetermined).

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WPG 53%
53%
WPG
Model favorite
53%
47%
WPG50CHI

WPG by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.6–2.5 CHI; 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
WPG← edge
edge →CHI
48.0%42.0%
49.0%46.0%
2.342.17
2.552.94
1.901.84
2.102.41
0.9980.996

WPG holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.996) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
WPG
5-3-2
-2 GD · 3d rest
CHI
3-5-2
-17 GD · 2d rest
0.998
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.996
CHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Jets own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Blackhawks are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
WPG
Expected in goal
C. Hellebuyck
3 days rest.913 last start
Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI
Expected in goal
S. Knight
2 days rest.897 last start
Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
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
CHI
Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
Connor Bedard17G 27A
0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next