Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater

Breakdown · WPG at STL

Jets hold off the Blues

FinalThu, Apr 9

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 3 · STL 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:07 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

Winnipeg's 3-2 victory papers over a dominant underlying performance: the Jets claimed 5 of 7 high-danger chances while the Blues mustered 2, yet St. Louis' efficiency kept the game tight. The expected-goals split (2.73 for the Blues, 3.29 for the Jets) confirmed Winnipeg's edge without predicting a rout.

The Blues underperformed their expected output by 0.73 goals, converting just two despite chances suggesting closer to three. C. Hellebuyck was sharp, stopping 20 of 22 shots for a 0.909 save percentage, while J. Binnington posted a 0.912 mark on 31 saves.

Colton Parayko broke through at 13:00 of the third period with a wrist shot from the high slot, the game's clearest turning point. It proved the Blues' last genuine scoring opportunity.

Both teams thrived rushing the puck—Winnipeg scored twice on 22 rush chances, the Blues on 23. Neither team could capitalize consistently on rebounds: St. Louis created five rebound opportunities without converting any, Winnipeg converted one of five. Winnipeg's ruthlessness in high-danger areas (2 goals on 5 chances, a 40% rate) made the difference.

The shot count—St. Louis 22, Winnipeg 34—starkly illustrated control. M. Scheifele led the Jets with two assists in 20:21. For the Blues, D. Holloway contributed a goal and an assist in 18:03, while P. Broberg added an assist in 22:32.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 9

WPG

STL

Jets hold off the Blues

Chances 3.3 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

3.29

STL

2.73

55% of the chances45%

The board read WPG 3, STL 2. The chances read WPG 3.3, STL 2.7.

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

Luck check

WPG

−0.3

goals above expected

WPG3.29 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

STL2.73 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

P1 04:56STLD. HollowayPP0–1
P1 09:24WPGA. Iafallo1–1
P2 14:11WPGJ. Morrissey2–1
P2 15:51WPGJ. Toews3–1
P3 13:00STLC. Parayko3–2

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

Where the shots came from

WPG

44 shots

Final

77 shots

STL

33 shots

WPG STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGSTL

2 / 5

1.16 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.41 xG

1 / 16

1.64 xG

Medium

2 / 17

1.89 xG

0 / 35

0.49 xG

Low

0 / 28

0.43 xG

The Jets buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

C. Hellebuyck

+0.7

WPG · 20/22

J. Binnington

+0.3

STL · 31/34

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Jets hold off the Blues

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 16–12

04:56STLD. Hollowaypower play(R. Thomas, P. Broberg)0–1
09:24WPGA. Iafallo(M. Scheifele, H. Fleury)1–1

2ndshots 11–7

14:11WPGJ. Morrissey(J. Bryson, M. Scheifele)2–1
15:51WPGJ. Toews(C. Perfetti, G. Vilardi)3–1

3rdshots 7–3

13:00STLC. Parayko(J. Kyrou, D. Holloway)3–2

score reads WPG–STL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.29

WPG chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.3

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.011

WPG puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

54.4%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.29Expected goals2.73

WPG 55% of the chance quality

34Shots on goal22

5High-danger chances2

56All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: WPG 53% · STL 48%

Faceoffs · STL won26%off46%neu39%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG2 / 5 · 1.16 xG

STL0 / 2 · 0.41 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG1 / 16 · 1.64 xG

STL2 / 17 · 1.89 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG0 / 35 · 0.49 xG

STL0 / 28 · 0.43 xG

WPG went 2-for-5 from high danger on 1.16 expected goals — 0.8 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

3 G · 3.29 xG · -0.3

STL

2 G · 2.73 xG · -0.7

01234

WPG finished -0.3 against expected, STL -0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

WRIST2/23

SNAP1/7

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/7

DEFLECTED0/0

BACKHAND0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/12

STL

WRIST2/20

SNAP0/5

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/14

WPG

STL

Off the rush

2 G on 22

2.10 xG

2 G on 23

1.77 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 5

0.85 xG

0 G on 5

0.76 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 2-for-23, STL 2-for-20. WPG 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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 20/22 · .909

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium2/171.9-0.1

Low0/280.4+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. Binnington

STL · 31/34 · .912

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.2-0.8

Medium1/161.6+0.6

Low0/350.5+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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

44 shots

Final

77 shots

STL

33 shots

WPG STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, STL 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 · 20:21 on ice · +1

D. Holloway

#81 · L · STL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:03 on ice

P. Broberg

#6 · D · STL

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:32 on ice · -2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:02 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 2.4–2.6 goal game with the Blues at 54% win probability. This is the definition of a pick'em—no meaningful edge.

The surface metrics explain why. St. Louis leads in xG% at 49.0% versus 48.0%, but Winnipeg counters with a 49.0%–48.0% Corsi advantage. PDO sits nearly identical (St. Louis 1.000, Winnipeg 0.998), meaning neither team is beating or falling short of sustainable talent. The predictors have nothing to work with.

Rest favors St. Louis: one day off against Winnipeg's three. J. Hofer takes the net on a back-to-back; watch for a backup appearance or fatigue-driven sloppiness.

Winnipeg rides Nino Niederreiter and Kyle Connor. Niederreiter generates 0.87 xG/60 with 6 goals and 6 assists, including 3 high-danger goals, shooting at 8.6%—an outlier that will revert. Connor sits at 0.83 xG/60 with 25 goals and 30 assists, but his 13.0% shooting rate is unsustainable. Both matter; neither escapes underlying value.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud and Dylan Holloway. Snuggerud produces 0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 22 assists, and 2 high-danger goals. Holloway generates 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals, 24 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and 10.8% shooting. Both are anchored in expected metrics.

When neither team has a measurable advantage—no shot-quality edge, no luck edge—execution decides the outcome. The model reflects this: 54% is as close to even money as hockey gets.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 54%

53%

STL

Model favorite

47%

53%

WPG50STL

STL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.4–2.6 STL; 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 →STL

48.0%49.0%

49.0%48.0%

2.342.34

2.552.40

1.902.00

2.102.12

0.9981.000

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.000) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

WPG

6-3-1

+2 GD · 3d rest

STL

6-2-2

+10 GD · 1d rest

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

J. Hofer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Jets have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

3 days rest.917 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

STL

Expected in goal

J. Hofer

back-to-back.919 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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

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

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A

0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh

Dylan Holloway13G 24A

0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page