Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Tue, Apr 7 · the slate
Breakdown · SEA at MIN

Wild pull away from the Kraken

FinalTue, Apr 7
SEASeattle Kraken2MINMinnesota Wild5
The verdict · earned

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

SEA 2 · MIN 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:46 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

Minnesota's dominance went beyond the 5-2 scoreline. The Wild's shot quality was nearly twice Seattle's — they generated 0.084 expected goals per attempt, compared to the Kraken's 0.045.

That efficiency gap explains their dominance. Minnesota held 52% of shot attempts (29–27 on goal) and 58% of 5v5 expected goals (3.97–2.88). High-danger chances ran 9–1 in Minnesota's favor.

J. Wallstedt deserved credit for the margin. He overperformed his expected goals by 0.88, posting a 0.926 save percentage on 25 saves. J. Daccord, facing relentless pressure, finished at 0.857 and underperformed his xG by 0.88.

Minnesota's danger came from two sources: the rush and the net. The Wild scored twice off 23 rush chances and converted 2 of 4 rebound opportunities, a sign of effective net-crashing. Seattle countered from low-leverage spots, scoring on chances with just 0.045 expected goals each — the kind of goals a goalie typically stops.

The turning point came early. J. Eriksson Ek's wrist shot from the wing at 17:17 of the third period gave Minnesota separation they wouldn't relinquish.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 7
SEA
2
MIN
5

Wild pull away from the Kraken

Chances 2.9 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
2.88
MIN
3.97
42% of the chances58%

The board read SEA 2, MIN 5. The chances read SEA 2.9, MIN 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+1.0
goals above expected
MIN3.97 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA2.88 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 10:23SEAB. Montour1–0
  2. P1 11:57MINM. Boldy1–1
  3. P1 13:10SEAA. Larsson2–1
  4. P2 00:38MINM. Foligno2–2
  5. P2 12:46MINV. Tarasenko2–3
  6. P3 06:49MINM. Johansson2–4
  7. P3 17:17MINJ. Eriksson EkEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
45 shots
2
Final
80 shots
MIN
35 shots
5
SEA attackMIN attack
SEA MIN Goal
45
shots · 2 in
35
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEAMIN
0 / 1
0.37 xG
High danger
3 / 9
2.30 xG
0 / 14
1.51 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.30 xG
2 / 49
1.01 xG
Low
0 / 26
0.37 xG

The Wild buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Wallstedt
+0.9
MIN · 25/27
C
J. Daccord
−0.0
SEA · 24/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild pull away from the Kraken

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 13–9
  1. 10:23SEAB. Montour(K. Kakko, J. Schwartz)1–0
  2. 11:57MINM. Boldy(J. Eriksson Ek, M. Johansson)1–1
  3. 13:10SEAA. Larsson(C. Stephenson)2–1
2ndshots 6–11
  1. 00:38MINM. Foligno(Y. Trenin)2–2
  2. 12:46MINV. Tarasenko(R. Hartman, J. Spurgeon)2–3
3rdshots 8–9
  1. 06:49MINM. Johansson(M. Boldy, J. Eriksson Ek)2–4
  2. 17:17MINJ. Eriksson Ekempty net2–5

score reads SEA–MIN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.97
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.075
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
42.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.88Expected goals3.97
MIN 58% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal29
1High-danger chances9
64All attempts (Corsi)47
Adjusted for score: SEA 59% · MIN 41%
Faceoffs · MIN won27%off50%neu77%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SEA0 / 1 · 0.37 xG
MIN3 / 9 · 2.30 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SEA0 / 14 · 1.51 xG
MIN2 / 12 · 1.30 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SEA2 / 49 · 1.01 xG
MIN0 / 26 · 0.37 xG

SEA went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.51 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SEA
2 G · 2.88 xG · -0.9
MIN
5 G · 3.97 xG · +1.0
0123456

SEA finished -0.9 against expected, MIN +1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SEA
WRIST0/26
SLAP1/9
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/19
MIN
WRIST4/19
SLAP0/4
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/12
SEA
MIN
Off the rush
1 G on 31
2.20 xG
2 G on 23
2.38 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.04 xG
2 G on 4
0.66 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 0-for-26, MIN 4-for-19. MIN scored 2 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. Daccord
SEA · 24/28 · .857
-0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/92.3-0.7
Medium2/121.3-0.7
Low0/260.4+0.4

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. Wallstedt
MIN · 25/27 · .926
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.4+0.4
Medium0/141.5+1.5
Low2/491.0-1.0

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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SEA
45 shots
2
Final
80 shots
MIN
35 shots
5
SEA attackMIN attack
SEA MIN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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
J. Eriksson Ek
#14 · C · MIN
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 13:09 on ice · +3
M. Boldy
#12 · L · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 14:29 on ice · +2
M. Johansson
#90 · L · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 12:12 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Apr 7
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:45 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

Minnesota's 57% win probability reflects a structural advantage in expected goal generation and shot attempts, not recent heroics. The model projects a 2.3-2.7 Minnesota victory.

Recent Form

Minnesota is 6-4-0 in their last ten games. Seattle has collapsed, sitting at -23 goal differential over that same span. The records matter, but they're trailing indicators—the underlying metrics lead.

Where Minnesota's Edge Lives

At 5v5, Minnesota generates 52.0% of expected goals versus Seattle's 46.0%. The Corsi split (Minnesota 48.0%, Seattle 45.0%) confirms it in shot attempts: Minnesota controls volume from better positions. Seattle's 1.011 PDO hasn't overcome the volume deficit; Minnesota's 1.007 suggests regression won't help either. This is sustainable dominance.

Goaltending Volatility

P. Grubauer on back-to-back duty often means a backup start or tired performance—either creates an opening for Minnesota's depth to exploit weak-side positioning.

Players to Watch

  • Matt Boldy (MIN) — 0.89 xG/60 with 22 goals and 13.7% shooting. He converts volume into goals at an elite rate.
  • Shane Wright (SEA) — 0.77 xG/60, four high-danger goals, 10.4% shooting. Elite-level chance generation at a high conversion rate.
  • Robby Fabbri (MIN) — 0.88 xG/60. Likely out.
  • Berkly Catton (SEA) — 0.68 xG/60, 6 goals, 8.8% shooting. Secondary scoring threat.

Depth Defense

Neither team converts high-danger chances into rebounds—second-chance goals won't decide this game. Chandler Stephenson (Seattle) and Matt Kiersted (Minnesota) are the defensive weak links that will see action.

Minnesota's edge is durable. Unless Seattle finds sudden volume or a goaltending upset, the model's math holds.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 57%
57%
MIN
Model favorite
43%
57%
SEA50MIN

MIN by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.7 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
SEA← edge
edge →MIN
46.0%52.0%
45.0%48.0%
2.132.55
2.512.40
1.872.04
1.951.93
1.0111.007

MIN holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 1.007) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SEA
1-7-2
-23 GD · 1d rest
MIN
6-4-0
+1 GD · 2d rest
1.011
SEA 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 46.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • P. Grubauer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Wild are the hotter team by points pace (6-4-0 in their last 10).
  • The Kraken are underwater at -23 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
SEA
Expected in goal
P. Grubauer
back-to-back.833 last start
Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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.

MIN
Expected in goal
F. Gustavsson
2 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
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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