Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Thu, Apr 2 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at MIN

Wild run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Apr 2
VANVancouver Canucks2MINMinnesota Wild5
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 2 · MIN 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:07 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 Canucks' goalie played well — N. Tolopilo stopped 1.33 goals above expected — yet the game was decided by everything else. Vancouver generated 3.11 expected goals but scored only 2, underperforming by 1.11.

Minnesota's dominance was comprehensive. The Wild held 63% of 5v5 expected goals (5.33–3.11), controlling possession value decisively. They crushed high-danger chances 9–4. More importantly, Minnesota created substantially more dangerous looks: 0.082 expected goals per shot versus Vancouver's 0.048.

The Wild's efficiency closed what their control opened. They scored 4 goals on 34 rush chances, turning chaos into results. F. Gustavsson added 1.11 goals above expected, cementing a clean victory.

The 5-2 scoreline wasn't an outlier — it was the natural endpoint of Minnesota's control. The Wild ran the Canucks off the ice on the metrics that determine outcomes: shot quality, chance creation, and conversion.

Three Stars

  • M. Boldy (MIN) — 2G, 1A in 15:45
  • M. Zuccarello (MIN) — 2A in 20:02
  • K. Kaprizov (MIN) — 1G, 1A in 19:45
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 2
VAN
2
MIN
5

Wild run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.1 – 5.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
3.11
MIN
5.33
37% of the chances63%

The board read VAN 2, MIN 5. The chances read VAN 3.1, MIN 5.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
−0.3
goals above expected
MIN5.33 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN3.11 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 08:32MINM. Boldy0–1
  2. P1 16:00VANT. Willander1–1
  3. P1 16:42VANJ. DeBruskPP2–1
  4. P2 00:23MINM. Boldy2–2
  5. P2 06:08MINK. Kaprizov2–3
  6. P3 06:03MINR. Hartman2–4
  7. P3 18:52MINR. HartmanEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
45 shots
2
Final
96 shots
MIN
51 shots
5
VAN attackMIN attack
VAN MIN Goal
45
shots · 2 in
51
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANMIN
1 / 4
0.98 xG
High danger
2 / 9
2.62 xG
1 / 13
1.38 xG
Medium
3 / 18
2.20 xG
0 / 48
0.75 xG
Low
0 / 38
0.52 xG

The Wild buried 2 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
N. Tolopilo
+1.3
VAN · 34/38
B+
F. Gustavsson
+1.1
MIN · 31/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild run the Canucks 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 15–15
  1. 08:32MINM. Boldy(M. Johansson, J. Eriksson Ek)0–1
  2. 16:00VANT. Willander(T. Blueger, M. Sasson)1–1
  3. 16:42VANJ. DeBruskpower play(F. Hronek, E. Pettersson)2–1
2ndshots 5–11
  1. 00:23MINM. Boldy2–2
  2. 06:08MINK. Kaprizov(M. Zuccarello)2–3
3rdshots 13–13
  1. 06:03MINR. Hartman(M. Zuccarello, Q. Hughes)2–4
  2. 18:52MINR. Hartmanempty net(K. Kaprizov, M. Boldy)2–5

score reads VAN–MIN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.33
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.046
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
50.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.11Expected goals5.33
MIN 63% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal39
4High-danger chances9
65All attempts (Corsi)65
Adjusted for score: VAN 53% · MIN 47%
Faceoffs · MIN won36%off42%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN1 / 4 · 0.98 xG
MIN2 / 9 · 2.62 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN1 / 13 · 1.38 xG
MIN3 / 18 · 2.20 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 48 · 0.75 xG
MIN0 / 38 · 0.52 xG

MIN went 3-for-18 from medium danger on 2.20 expected goals — 0.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
2 G · 3.11 xG · -1.1
MIN
5 G · 5.33 xG · -0.3
0123456

VAN finished -1.1 against expected, MIN -0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST2/24
SNAP0/8
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/20
MIN
WRIST3/36
SNAP1/7
TIP IN1/5
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
BACKHAND0/0
OTHER0/14
VAN
MIN
Off the rush
0 G on 26
1.76 xG
4 G on 34
3.75 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 5
0.76 xG
0 G on 3
0.57 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 2-for-24, MIN 3-for-36. MIN 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
N. Tolopilo
VAN · 34/38 · .895
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/92.6+0.6
Medium3/182.2-0.8
Low0/380.5+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

F. Gustavsson
MIN · 31/33 · .939
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.0-0.0
Medium1/131.4+0.4
Low0/480.8+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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
45 shots
2
Final
96 shots
MIN
51 shots
5
VAN attackMIN attack
VAN MIN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, MIN 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. Boldy
#12 · L · MIN
2 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 15:45 on ice · +3
M. Zuccarello
#36 · R · MIN
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:02 on ice · +2
K. Kaprizov
#97 · L · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:45 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:05 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 Wild are favored at 58% win probability. The model projects a 2.8-2.3 final.

Minnesota commands the underlying play. They hold 52.0% expected goals at 5v5 to Vancouver's 44.0%, a gap reflected in shot share (48.0% Corsi over 46.0%). Minnesota's 4-5-1 over ten games understates their control; Vancouver's -19 goal differential over the same span reveals genuine dysfunction.

Vancouver carries a regression vector. At 0.974 PDO, the Canucks are running cold—a conversion rate that invariably normalizes upward. PDO moves.

Minnesota adds rest: 5 days to Vancouver's 2. Neither team has cashed in on high-danger or rebound chances (both at 0%), shifting advantage toward shot efficiency and puck possession.

Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13G) leads Vancouver's attack. Matt Boldy (22G, 0.89 xG/60) anchors Minnesota's—the sharper matchup. Victor Mancini and Matt Kiersted emerge as respective defensive weak links.

Vancouver would benefit from Filip Chytil (1.03 xG/60), but he's likely unavailable (59 days since last game). Robby Fabbri is marked inactive for Minnesota. Both teams enter diminished.

The model's 58% confidence rests on Minnesota's play dominance and rest. Vancouver's PDO should normalize, but not steeply enough to erase Minnesota's structural edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 59%
58%
MIN
Model favorite
42%
58%
VAN50MIN

MIN by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.3–2.8 MIN; 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
VAN← edge
edge →MIN
44.0%52.0%
46.0%48.0%
2.222.55
2.812.40
1.602.04
2.561.93
0.9741.007

MIN holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 1.007) says MIN 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 · 2d rest
MIN
4-5-1
-4 GD · 5d rest
0.974
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.007
MIN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • The Wild are the hotter team by points pace (4-5-1 in their last 10).
  • The Canucks are underwater at -19 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Wild have 3 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
2 days rest.909 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MIN
Expected in goal
F. Gustavsson
5 days rest.833 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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
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
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page