Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater

Breakdown · VAN at COL

Canucks hold off the Avalanche

FinalWed, Apr 1

VANVancouver Canucks8 COLColorado Avalanche6

The verdict · earned

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

VAN 8 · COL 6

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:52 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 controlled play but couldn't finish — the Avalanche held 54% of shot attempts (30–26 on goal) yet lost 8-6. The underlying numbers told a similar story, favoring Vancouver only slightly: expected goals split 3.60–3.98, a margin too thin to excuse the result.

The turning point came when Brock Boeser ripped a wrist shot from the wing in the third period. That goal crystallized Vancouver's true edge: high-danger efficiency. The Canucks converted 3 of 5 quality chances (60%). Colorado had 6 high-danger looks and buried none.

Both goalies were undone by variance. K. Lankinen (VAN) gave up 2.40 goals more than expected, yet still emerged with the win. M. Blackwood (COL) gave up 2.97 goals more than expected. When luck favors one side, superior possession can't win the game.

Vancouver's lethal edge materialized in transition. The Canucks potted 7 goals off 34 rush chances; Colorado scored just 3 on the same volume. That gap—identical opportunity, radically different finish—is what a 54% possession advantage couldn't overcome. The Avalanche's shot volume mattered little against a Canucks team that finished everything that mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 1

VAN

COL

Canucks hold off the Avalanche

Chances 4.0 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Canucks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

VAN

3.98

COL

3.60

53% of the chances48%

The board read VAN 8, COL 6. The chances read VAN 4.0, COL 3.6.

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

Luck check

VAN

+4.0

goals above expected

VAN3.98 expected · 8 scored

Expected

Scored

COL3.60 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

The Canucks scored 4.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 00:29VANM. Sasson1–0
P1 01:22COLN. MacKinnon1–1
P1 05:21VANT. BluegerSH2–1
P1 11:38VANJ. DeBruskPP3–1
P1 16:05COLG. Landeskog3–2
P2 05:02VANT. Blueger4–2
P2 09:42VANB. Boeser5–2

+7 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

VAN

42 shots

Final

88 shots

COL

46 shots

VAN COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 8 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VANCOL

3 / 5

1.63 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.49 xG

3 / 15

1.68 xG

Medium

0 / 12

1.31 xG

2 / 30

0.67 xG

Low

6 / 44

0.81 xG

The Avalanche went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

S. Wedgewood

+3.0

COL · 5/6

M. Blackwood

−2.0

COL · 13/19

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Canucks hold off the Avalanche

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 12–7

00:29VANM. Sasson(F. Hronek, Z. Buium)1–0
01:22COLN. MacKinnon(D. Toews, S. Malinski)1–1
05:21VANT. Bluegershorthanded(L. Ohgren)2–1
11:38VANJ. DeBruskpower play(E. Pettersson, M. Rossi)3–1
16:05COLG. Landeskog(B. Burns, V. Nichushkin)3–2

2ndshots 8–6

05:02VANT. Blueger(M. Sasson, M. Pettersson)4–2
09:42VANB. Boeser(T. Willander, M. Rossi)5–2
15:21VANB. Boeser(D. O'Connor)6–2
15:43COLS. Malinski(D. Toews)6–3

3rdshots 6–17

00:14COLP. Kelly(J. Drury, J. Manson)6–4
13:21COLB. Burns(B. Nelson, V. Nichushkin)6–5
13:58COLS. Malinski6–6
14:21VANM. Pettersson(B. Boeser, D. O'Connor)7–6
18:31VANB. Boeserempty net(M. Pettersson)8–6

score reads VAN–COL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.98

VAN chances

Goals their shots were worth

+4.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.063

VAN puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.98Expected goals3.60

VAN 53% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal30

5High-danger chances6

50All attempts (Corsi)62

Adjusted for score: VAN 39% · COL 61%

Faceoffs · COL won21%off60%neu41%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VAN3 / 5 · 1.63 xG

COL0 / 6 · 1.49 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VAN3 / 15 · 1.68 xG

COL0 / 12 · 1.31 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VAN2 / 30 · 0.67 xG

COL6 / 44 · 0.81 xG

COL went 6-for-44 from low danger on 0.81 expected goals — 5.2 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VAN

8 G · 3.98 xG · +4.0

COL

6 G · 3.60 xG · +2.4

0123456789

VAN finished +4.0 against expected, COL +2.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

VAN

WRIST4/26

SNAP2/5

TIP IN1/5

SLAP1/3

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/8

COL

WRIST4/21

SNAP1/11

TIP IN1/5

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/2

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/16

VAN

COL

Off the rush

7 G on 34

2.56 xG

3 G on 34

3.10 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.70 xG

0 G on 1

0.12 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 4-for-26, COL 4-for-21. VAN scored 7 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

K. Lankinen

VAN · 24/30 · .800

-2.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.5+1.5

Medium0/121.3+1.3

Low6/440.8-5.2

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

M. Blackwood

COL · 13/19 · .684

-2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/51.6-1.4

Medium3/151.7-1.3

Low2/300.7-1.3

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

S. Wedgewood

COL · 5/6 · .833

+3.0

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/51.6-1.4

Medium3/151.7-1.3

Low2/300.7-1.3

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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VAN

42 shots

Final

88 shots

COL

46 shots

VAN COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

B. Boeser

#6 · R · VAN

3 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:57 on ice · +2

M. Pettersson

#29 · D · VAN

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 25:07 on ice · +4

S. Malinski

#70 · D · COL

2 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:52 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Apr 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:50 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 VAN 2.3 - 3.1 COL game with the Avalanche at 63% win probability.

The Avalanche are riding recent form—6-3-1 over their last 10—while Vancouver is drowning, with a -19 goal differential in the same span. That gap in points pace tells you most of what matters here.

But the deeper advantage lies in the underlying play. Colorado dominates 5v5 shot metrics: they're generating 57.0% of expected goals and 57.0% of Corsi, compared to Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. That territorial control doesn't guarantee victory, but it's the foundation.

The regression story cuts both ways. Colorado's PDO sits at 1.021—they're running hot and should expect the positive luck to even out. Vancouver's PDO sits at 0.974—they're running cold and due for positive regression. Both teams will feel the pull toward neutral over time.

Goaltending presents a complication. Both S. Wedgewood and K. Lankinen are on back-to-backs, which raises the possibility of bench appearances or fatigued starters.

On the ice, Artturi Lehkonen is Colorado's engine at 1.11 xG per 60 with 18 goals and 6 high-danger chances. Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7 goals, 1 high-danger chance) contributes at the same rate but with less volume.

For Vancouver, the situation is murky. Filip Chytil generates 1.03 xG per 60 and has 3 goals with 1 high-danger chance, but he hasn't played in 58 days and is likely injured or on the IR—he's not a factor. Drew O'Connor is more available: 13 goals at an 11.8% shooting rate, with 11 assists and 3 high-danger chances to back it up.

Colorado's weak point defensively is Nazem Kadri. Vancouver's is Victor Mancini. Targeting those pairings could create secondary chances, but Colorado's superior underlying play means Vancouver needs to create multiple layers of advantage to overcome the gap.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 63%

63%

COL

Model favorite

37%

63%

VAN50COL

COL by 26 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.3–3.1 COL; 17% 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

VAN← edge

edge →COL

44.0%57.0%

46.0%57.0%

2.223.03

2.812.30

1.602.63

2.561.56

0.9741.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

VAN

2-8-0

-19 GD · 1d rest

COL

6-3-1

+10 GD · 1d rest

0.974

VAN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.021

COL 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 44.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
S. Wedgewood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Avalanche are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
The Canucks are underwater at -19 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

VAN

Expected in goal

K. Lankinen

back-to-back.909 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.

COL

Expected in goal

S. Wedgewood

back-to-back.931 last start

Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page