Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · MIN at DAL

Stars steal one from the Wild against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Stars stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.42–2.12 and won anyway.

MIN 4 · DAL 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:05 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

Dallas won 5–4 despite losing expected goals 2.12–3.42. Minnesota controlled 62% of expected goal share at 5v5 — the Wild were the better team and lost anyway.

The metrics confirm it. Minnesota held a 31–20 edge in shot attempts while Dallas generated 2 high-danger chances to Minnesota's 4. That's inverted: the team that got outshot had more dangerous looks. Goaltending was the delta. F. Gustavsson surrendered 2.88 goals above expectation on 15 saves. J. Oettinger gave up only 0.58 above expected on 27 stops — the two performances were not even close.

Dallas exploited what mattered most: the rush. They scored 2 goals on 18 rush chances; Minnesota scored 2 on 30. Dallas finished with precision; Minnesota did not.

Jason Robertson's wrist shot from a sharp angle (10:35, P3) was the game's hinge. It tilted Dallas into a lead they would not surrender.

The special-teams story belonged to Minnesota. They converted 3 power-play goals on 10 shots (0.83 xG), a dominant display that should have been enough. It wasn't. They paid for mediocre 5v5 finishing while Dallas thrived on their chances.

M. Zuccarello led with 3 assists in 18:12. Q. Hughes added 1 goal and 1 assist in 31:51. E. Lindell posted 2 assists in 25:03.

Three Stars

  • #36 M. Zuccarello (MIN) — 3A in 18:12
  • #43 Q. Hughes (MIN) — 1G, 1A in 31:51
  • #23 E. Lindell (DAL) — 2A in 25:03
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 9
MIN
4
DAL
5

Stars steal one from the Wild against the run of play

Chances 3.4 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.42
DAL
2.12
62% of the chances38%

The board read MIN 4, DAL 5. The chances read MIN 3.4, DAL 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
+2.9
goals above expected
DAL2.12 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN3.42 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars scored 2.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:26DALW. Johnston0–1
  2. P1 13:02MINQ. Hughes1–1
  3. P1 19:44MINK. KaprizovPP2–1
  4. P2 06:39MINK. KaprizovPP3–1
  5. P2 08:03DALC. Blackwell3–2
  6. P2 16:16DALC. Hughes3–3
  7. P2 19:49MINR. HartmanPP4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
44 shots
4
Final
74 shots
DAL
30 shots
5
MIN attackDAL attack
MIN DAL Goal
44
shots · 4 in
30
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINDAL
1 / 4
1.01 xG
High danger
2 / 2
0.49 xG
2 / 15
1.68 xG
Medium
3 / 11
1.07 xG
1 / 41
0.72 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.56 xG

The Stars buried 2 of 2 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
J. Oettinger
−0.6
DAL · 27/31
F
F. Gustavsson
−2.9
MIN · 15/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars steal one from the Wild against the run of play

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 8–4
  1. 04:26DALW. Johnston(J. Hryckowian, M. Rantanen)0–1
  2. 13:02MINQ. Hughes(M. Zuccarello)1–1
  3. 19:44MINK. Kaprizovpower play(M. Boldy, M. Zuccarello)2–1
2ndshots 14–10
  1. 06:39MINK. Kaprizovpower play(M. Boldy, M. Zuccarello)3–1
  2. 08:03DALC. Blackwell(E. Lindell)3–2
  3. 16:16DALC. Hughes(C. Blackwell, O. Bäck)3–3
  4. 19:49MINR. Hartmanpower play(J. Spurgeon, Q. Hughes)4–3
3rdshots 9–6
  1. 04:28DALM. Rantanen(T. Harley, W. Johnston)4–4
  2. 10:35DALJ. Robertson(E. Lindell)4–5

score reads MIN–DAL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.12
DAL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.055
DAL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
40.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.42Expected goals2.12
MIN 62% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal20
4High-danger chances2
60All attempts (Corsi)41
Adjusted for score: MIN 59% · DAL 42%
Faceoffs · DAL won39%off60%neu43%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN1 / 4 · 1.01 xG
DAL2 / 2 · 0.49 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN2 / 15 · 1.68 xG
DAL3 / 11 · 1.07 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN1 / 41 · 0.72 xG
DAL0 / 28 · 0.56 xG

DAL went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.07 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
4 G · 3.42 xG · +0.6
DAL
5 G · 2.12 xG · +2.9
0123456

MIN finished +0.6 against expected, DAL +2.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
SNAP2/24
WRIST0/7
TIP IN2/4
BACKHAND0/2
SLAP0/6
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/16
DAL
SNAP3/11
WRIST1/7
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/6
SLAP0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/11
MIN
DAL
Off the rush
2 G on 30
2.42 xG
2 G on 18
0.95 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.19 xG
1 G on 3
0.35 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: MIN went 2-for-24, DAL 3-for-11. 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
F. Gustavsson
MIN · 15/20 · .750
-2.9
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/20.5-1.5
Medium3/111.1-1.9
Low0/280.6+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

J. Oettinger
DAL · 27/31 · .871
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.0+0.0
Medium2/151.7-0.3
Low1/410.7-0.3

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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MIN
44 shots
4
Final
74 shots
DAL
30 shots
5
MIN attackDAL attack
MIN DAL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, DAL 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. Zuccarello
#36 · R · MIN
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 18:12 on ice
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 31:51 on ice · -2
E. Lindell
#23 · D · DAL
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 25:03 on ice · +4
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, 11:03 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 MIN 2.4–2.5 game with Dallas at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Minnesota owns the momentum: the Wild are 7-3-0 in their last 10, the hotter team by points pace. But season-long 5v5 metrics are effectively neutral. Minnesota sits at 52.0% expected goals share and 48.0% Corsi%, while Dallas counters with 51.0% xG% and 47.0% Corsi%. The margins are marginal—neither team has separated itself on volume.

Dallas's edge exists in statistical luck. The Stars' 1.024 PDO indicates they're converting chances at a rate their underlying play doesn't sustain. Minnesota's 1.007 PDO aligns closer to reality. Over a full season, regression favors the Wild. Over one game, it's noise.

The decisive variable is firepower. Jason Robertson (25G 21A, 0.96 xG/60) generates premium chances at an elite rate. Michael Bunting (8G 14A, 0.83 xG/60) provides secondary scoring. Minnesota counters with Matt Boldy (22G 18A, 0.89 xG/60), who matches Robertson's intensity but has ridden higher shooting luck at 13.7% versus Robertson's 12.4%. Robby Fabbri, Minnesota's third-line creator at 0.88 xG/60, is likely unavailable.

Both J. Oettinger and J. Wallstedt are on back-to-backs, introducing a variable that could shift momentum depending on coach decisions and fatigue.

Dallas holds an edge—Robertson's elite generation, statistical overperformance. Minnesota holds momentum and regression expectations. But 51% barely tilts toward Dallas. The advantages cancel.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 51%
51%
DAL
Model favorite
49%
51%
MIN50DAL

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.4–2.5 DAL; 19% 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
MIN← edge
edge →DAL
52.0%51.0%
48.0%47.0%
2.552.36
2.402.29
2.042.07
1.931.68
1.0071.024

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.007 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MIN
7-3-0
+6 GD · 1d rest
DAL
3-5-2
-4 GD · 1d rest
1.007
MIN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.024
DAL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Wallstedt is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Wild are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MIN
Expected in goal
J. Wallstedt
back-to-back.926 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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.

DAL
Expected in goal
J. Oettinger
back-to-back.850 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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
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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next