Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater

Breakdown · WPG at CBJ

Jets hold off the Blue Jackets

FinalSat, Apr 4

WPGWinnipeg Jets2 CBJColumbus Blue Jackets1

The verdict · coin flip

The Jets won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

WPG 2 · CBJ 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:20 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

Hellebuyck was the only difference. Columbus generated more high-danger chances (five versus four) and nearly matched Winnipeg's expected goals (2.61–2.71), yet lost 2–1 because Hellebuyck saved all five high-danger looks.

The Blue Jackets held 38 percent of shot attempts (16–26) but created nearly as many quality opportunities as the Jets. Five high-danger scoring chances yielded zero goals—an outcome that won't repeat. Hellebuyck faced 16 total shots and saved 15 (0.938 SV%), finishing 1.61 goals above expected.

Kyle Connor's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 10:58) provided the margin. Winnipeg generated 2.71 xG and scored two (underperforming by 0.71). Columbus generated 2.61 xG and scored one (underperforming by 1.61). The gap came down to goaltending: Hellebuyck denied the Blue Jackets at their most dangerous. J. Greaves (CBJ) saved 24 of 26 shots (0.923 SV%), only beating expected by 0.71.

Winnipeg won on elite performance when it mattered most, not on possession or overall chance creation.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 4

WPG

CBJ

Jets hold off the Blue Jackets

Chances 2.7 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Jets took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

2.71

CBJ

2.61

51% of the chances49%

The board read WPG 2, CBJ 1. The chances read WPG 2.7, CBJ 2.6.

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

Luck check

WPG

−0.7

goals above expected

WPG2.71 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

CBJ2.61 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blue Jackets left 1.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 01:17CBJI. Provorov0–1
P2 18:14WPGK. Connor1–1
P3 10:58WPGK. Connor2–1

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

Where the shots came from

WPG

39 shots

Final

75 shots

CBJ

36 shots

WPG CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGCBJ

1 / 4

0.92 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.15 xG

1 / 10

1.15 xG

Medium

1 / 7

0.80 xG

0 / 46

0.63 xG

Low

0 / 38

0.66 xG

The Blue Jackets went 0 for 5 from the slot.

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

In the net

C. Hellebuyck

+1.6

WPG · 15/16

J. Greaves

+0.7

CBJ · 24/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Jets hold off the Blue Jackets

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 9–5

01:17CBJI. Provorov(M. Marchment, K. Marchenko)0–1

2ndshots 9–3

18:14WPGK. Connor(M. Scheifele, N. Pionk)1–1

3rdshots 8–8

10:58WPGK. Connor(M. Scheifele)2–1

score reads WPG–CBJ

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.71

WPG chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.7

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.013

WPG puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

54.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.71Expected goals2.61

WPG 51% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal16

4High-danger chances5

60All attempts (Corsi)50

Adjusted for score: WPG 56% · CBJ 44%

Faceoffs · CBJ won63%off69%neu83%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG1 / 4 · 0.92 xG

CBJ0 / 5 · 1.15 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG1 / 10 · 1.15 xG

CBJ1 / 7 · 0.80 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG0 / 46 · 0.63 xG

CBJ0 / 38 · 0.66 xG

CBJ went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.15 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

2 G · 2.71 xG · -0.7

CBJ

1 G · 2.61 xG · -1.6

01234

WPG finished -0.7 against expected, CBJ -1.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

SNAP0/10

WRIST2/14

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/3

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/21

CBJ

SNAP1/20

WRIST0/5

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/2

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/14

WPG

CBJ

Off the rush

1 G on 19

1.70 xG

1 G on 21

1.55 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.54 xG

0 G on 3

0.65 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-10, CBJ 1-for-20.

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 · 15/16 · .938

+1.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.1+1.1

Medium1/70.8-0.2

Low0/380.7+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

J. Greaves

CBJ · 24/26 · .923

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium1/101.1+0.1

Low0/460.6+0.6

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

39 shots

Final

75 shots

CBJ

36 shots

WPG CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, CBJ 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 · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:39 on ice · +2

K. Connor

#81 · L · WPG

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 21:27 on ice · +2

N. Pionk

#4 · D · WPG

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:56 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Apr 4

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:18 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 Columbus at 56% win probability, with an expected final score of 2.7-2.4 in favor of the Blue Jackets.

That edge rests on two pillars. First, Columbus dominates the underlying play. The Blue Jackets generate 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals and 51.0% of 5v5 Corsi, advantages that show up consistently in models that matter. Winnipeg's 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi mark them as the lesser force when the scoreboard sits frozen.

Second—and more immediate—is the rest gap. Columbus arrives on two days' recovery. Winnipeg plays tonight on zero. That compounds the underlying edge.

Winnipeg's strengths are narrow and player-dependent. Nino Niederreiter carries a 0.87 xG/60 at 6 goals and 6 assists, with three hard-chance goals and an 8.6% shooting rate. Kyle Connor is deeper into dominance: 0.83 xG/60 but 25 goals and 30 assists, sustaining a 13.0% shooting rate that outlasts most noise. Connor's shooting percentage is the thing to monitor—if it normalizes downward, Winnipeg's offense compresses.

Columbus inverts the profile. Boone Jenner posts 0.98 xG/60 across 11 goals and 21 assists with two hard-chance goals and 9.6% shooting. Mathieu Olivier sits at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals and 9 assists, one hard-chance goal, and 13.3% shooting—comparable efficiency to Connor but on a tighter point total. The Blue Jackets' attack comes wider and deeper.

Defensively, both teams carry identified weak points—Winnipeg's Colin Miller and Columbus's Conor Garland. Neither team has recorded a hard-chance goal or rebound goal this season, a metric too sparse for confident reading.

The model assumes Columbus's advantage in shot quality and puck possession persists, and that rest matters at the margins. Whether rest shifts the outcome by a full goal or a fraction of one depends on how much Winnipeg's zero days matter—a real variable, but secondary to the structural edge in play. Columbus is the team that should win. The model says so. Rest accelerates that timetable.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 56%

56%

CBJ

Model favorite

44%

56%

WPG50CBJ

CBJ by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.4–2.7 CBJ; 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 →CBJ

48.0%52.0%

49.0%51.0%

2.342.63

2.552.43

1.902.12

2.101.98

0.9981.003

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.003) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 0–10

WPG

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

CBJ

4-5-1

+0 GD · 2d rest

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

CBJ PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.

Things to watch

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Blue Jackets have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

WPG

Expected in goal

—

no game on file

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CBJ

Expected in goal

E. Merzlikins

2 days rest.762 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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

CBJ

Boone Jenner11G 21A

0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh

Mathieu Olivier12G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page