Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
← Sun, Apr 12 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at NJD

Devils edge the Senators in overtime

Final / OTSun, Apr 12
OTTOttawa Senators3NJDNew Jersey Devils4
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · NJD 4
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 1:19 PMxG: 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

Ottawa's efficiency in transition—three goals on 28 rush attempts—should have stolen the game, yet New Jersey's dominance in overall play proved decisive. The Devils controlled 56% of expected goals (4.48–3.55) and generated seven high-danger chances to four, establishing a clear advantage that Ottawa couldn't overcome despite their sharp transition scoring.

Goaltending tilted the ice. N. Daws stopped 27 of 30 (0.900 SV%, +0.55 vs expected), outperforming J. Reimer's 26 of 30 (0.867 SV%). That one-save margin reflected how completely New Jersey dominated the play.

New Jersey crashed the net relentlessly—six rebound opportunities, two converted—building physical pressure that overwhelmed the Senators' transition game. Ottawa managed only two goals on 32 rush attempts, insufficient to overcome New Jersey's grinding control of the ice. Nico Hischier's backhander from the doorstep—at 03:18 of overtime—sealed the win.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Apr 12
OTT
3
NJD
4

Devils edge the Senators in overtime

Chances 3.5 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.55
NJD
4.48
44% of the chances56%

The board read OTT 3, NJD 4. The chances read OTT 3.5, NJD 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
−0.5
goals above expected
NJD4.48 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.55 expected · 3 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 05:12NJDN. Hischier0–1
  2. P1 14:51NJDC. BrownSH0–2
  3. P2 07:42OTTM. Amadio1–2
  4. P2 10:25OTTS. PintoPP2–2
  5. P2 14:14OTTF. Zetterlund3–2
  6. P3 12:28NJDD. MercerSH3–3
  7. OT 03:18NJDN. HischierPP3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
39 shots
3
Final
88 shots
NJD
49 shots
4
OTT attackNJD attack
OTT NJD Goal
39
shots · 3 in
49
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTNJD
1 / 4
0.90 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.52 xG
2 / 19
2.09 xG
Medium
2 / 20
2.34 xG
0 / 23
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.62 xG

The Devils buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
N. Daws
+0.6
NJD · 27/30
B
J. Reimer
+0.5
OTT · 26/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Devils edge the Senators in overtime

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 6–8
  1. 05:12NJDN. Hischier(D. Mercer, T. Meier)0–1
  2. 14:51NJDC. Brownshorthanded(J. Hughes)0–2
2ndshots 16–5
  1. 07:42OTTM. Amadio(A. Zub, N. Cousins)1–2
  2. 10:25OTTS. Pintopower play(C. Giroux, D. Batherson)2–2
  3. 14:14OTTF. Zetterlund3–2
3rdshots 7–10
  1. 12:28NJDD. Mercershorthanded(N. Hischier)3–3
OTshots 1–7
  1. 03:18NJDN. Hischierpower play(J. Hughes, D. Hamilton)3–4

score reads OTT–NJD

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.48
NJD chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.5
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.003
NJD puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
56.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.55Expected goals4.48
NJD 56% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal30
4High-danger chances7
46All attempts (Corsi)59
Adjusted for score: OTT 45% · NJD 55%
Faceoffs · NJD won48%off59%neu18%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT1 / 4 · 0.90 xG
NJD2 / 7 · 1.52 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT2 / 19 · 2.09 xG
NJD2 / 20 · 2.34 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 23 · 0.56 xG
NJD0 / 32 · 0.62 xG

NJD went 0-for-32 from low danger on 0.62 expected goals — 0.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 3.55 xG · -0.6
NJD
4 G · 4.48 xG · -0.5
012345

OTT finished -0.6 against expected, NJD -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST1/8
SLAP1/13
SNAP0/8
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN1/6
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/7
NJD
WRIST2/26
SLAP0/4
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND2/7
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/10
OTT
NJD
Off the rush
3 G on 28
2.64 xG
2 G on 32
3.09 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.40 xG
2 G on 6
0.78 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-8, NJD 2-for-26. OTT scored 3 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. Reimer
OTT · 26/30 · .867
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.5-0.5
Medium2/202.3+0.3
Low0/320.6+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

N. Daws
NJD · 27/30 · .900
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium2/192.1+0.1
Low0/230.6+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
39 shots
3
Final
88 shots
NJD
49 shots
4
OTT attackNJD attack
OTT NJD Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, NJD 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
N. Hischier
#13 · C · —
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 22:40 on ice · +1
J. Hughes
#86 · C · —
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 25:32 on ice
D. Mercer
#91 · C · —
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:56 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Apr 12
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 1:21 PMEdited 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 2.6-2.4 Ottawa advantage with New Jersey at 47% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Ottawa dominates the underlying play. They're generating 56.0% of expected goals at 5v5 against 50.0% for New Jersey, and that advantage spreads across metrics: 53.0% Corsi compared to 51.0% tells the same story. But New Jersey's PDO of 0.971 signals they're running cold. Positive regression is due.

Goaltending could tilt the scales. J. Allen and L. Ullmark are both on back-to-backs. How their teams manage—backup start, tired starter, or rest—could decide a game this close.

Brady Tkachuk is Ottawa's most dangerous player. He's at 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals and 20 assists, including 2 high-danger goals, converting at 7.5%—a shooting clip that suggests he's finishing clean chances. Dylan Cozens owns 1.00 xG per 60 with 13 goals, 15 assists, and 1 high-danger goal, but he's shooting 9.5%, an outlier that could sustain or evaporate.

New Jersey's offense runs through Timo Meier and Jack Hughes. Meier's 1.08 xG per 60 comes with 13 goals, 15 assists, 3 high-danger goals, and a 6.7% shooting rate—he's converting efficiently. Hughes leads both teams in goals with 18 (17 assists) but sits at 0.88 xG per 60 and an elite 11.5% shot; he's finding space even when underlying numbers don't suggest it.

Neither team generates many high-danger or rebound goals, indicating tight play and disciplined defense. Nick Jensen is Ottawa's defensive weak link; Johnathan Kovacevic is New Jersey's. In a coin flip, those vulnerabilities could matter.

Three Stars to Watch:

  • Brady Tkachuk — 1.19 xG/60 and 2 high-danger goals represent the sharpest finishing on either side
  • J. Allen and L. Ullmark — both on back-to-backs; goaltending fatigue could decide a coin flip
  • Jack Hughes — 18 goals on 0.88 xG/60; his efficiency margin disappears in a tight game
What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 53%
53%
OTT
Model favorite
53%
47%
OTT50NJD

OTT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.4 NJD; 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
OTT← edge
edge →NJD
56.0%50.0%
53.0%51.0%
2.662.45
2.122.50
2.181.66
1.992.23
0.9930.971

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.971) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
OTT
6-3-1
+9 GD · 1d rest
NJD
5-4-1
-1 GD · 1d rest
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • OTT owns the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
Regression watch
  • NJD PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • OTT owns the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
  • J. Allen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • L. Ullmark is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • NJD PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
back-to-back1.000 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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.

NJD
Expected in goal
J. Allen
back-to-back.893 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page