Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
Breakdown · WPG at VGK

Golden Knights run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 2 · VGK 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:37 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

Vegas dominated the underlying play and turned it into an even uglier scoreline. The Knights held 62 percent of shot attempts (38 to 23) and 61 percent of expected goals (4.38 to 2.84), margins that should have predicted a comfortable win—but not 6–2.

The gap came from goaltending. Hart stopped 21 of 23 (0.913 SV%), beating his expected performance by 0.84 goals. Hellebuyck, facing a harder workload, managed 32 saves on 38 (0.842 SV%) and surrendered 1.62 more goals than expected. That gap in save percentage cascaded through the entire game.

Vegas turned its control into scoring by attacking the rush. They scored six goals on 26 rush chances—more than half their total. Their power play was equally clinical: two goals on 25 power-play shots (1.74 xG expected), converting their most dangerous looks. Winnipeg's rebound creation was competent—four rebound chances, one converted—but too late.

By the time the Jets mounted anything resembling a response, the Knights had built an insurmountable lead. Scheifele kept Winnipeg's hope alive with a goal and assist, but underlying percentages don't come back from four goals down.

Three Stars

  • J. Eichel (VGK)—1G, 3A
  • M. Stone (VGK)—1G, 2A
  • M. Scheifele (WPG)—1G, 1A
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 13
WPG
2
VGK
6

Golden Knights run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.8 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
2.84
VGK
4.38
39% of the chances61%

The board read WPG 2, VGK 6. The chances read WPG 2.8, VGK 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
+1.6
goals above expected
VGK4.38 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG2.84 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Golden Knights scored 1.6 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. P2 07:38VGKM. StoneSH0–1
  2. P2 18:54VGKR. Smith0–2
  3. P3 00:31VGKI. Barbashev0–3
  4. P3 02:34WPGG. VilardiPP1–3
  5. P3 03:37VGKR. Andersson1–4
  6. P3 04:41WPGM. Scheifele2–4
  7. P3 05:42VGKP. DorofeyevPP2–5
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
32 shots
2
Final
85 shots
VGK
53 shots
6
WPG attackVGK attack
WPG VGK Goal
32
shots · 2 in
53
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGVGK
1 / 3
0.90 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.91 xG
1 / 13
1.47 xG
Medium
4 / 28
2.96 xG
0 / 26
0.47 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.51 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 3, VGK 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
C. Hart
+0.8
VGK · 21/23
F
C. Hellebuyck
−1.6
WPG · 32/38
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 3–10no goals
    2ndshots 10–16
    1. 07:38VGKM. Stoneshorthanded(J. Eichel)0–1
    2. 18:54VGKR. Smith(N. Hanifin, R. Andersson)0–2
    3rdshots 10–12
    1. 00:31VGKI. Barbashev(J. Eichel, N. Hanifin)0–3
    2. 02:34WPGG. Vilardipower play(C. Miller, M. Scheifele)1–3
    3. 03:37VGKR. Andersson(M. Stone, I. Barbashev)1–4
    4. 04:41WPGM. Scheifele(K. Connor, G. Vilardi)2–4
    5. 05:42VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play(M. Stone, J. Eichel)2–5
    6. 07:38VGKJ. Eichelpower play2–6

    score reads WPG–VGK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.38
    VGK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.6
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.042
    VGK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    61.5%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.84Expected goals4.38
    VGK 61% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal38
    3High-danger chances4
    42All attempts (Corsi)67
    Adjusted for score: WPG 42% · VGK 58%
    Faceoffs · VGK won56%off53%neu25%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    WPG1 / 3 · 0.90 xG
    VGK1 / 4 · 0.91 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    WPG1 / 13 · 1.47 xG
    VGK4 / 28 · 2.96 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    WPG0 / 26 · 0.47 xG
    VGK1 / 35 · 0.51 xG

    VGK went 4-for-28 from medium danger on 2.96 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    WPG
    2 G · 2.84 xG · -0.8
    VGK
    6 G · 4.38 xG · +1.6
    01234567

    WPG finished -0.8 against expected, VGK +1.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    WPG
    WRIST1/16
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN1/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/10
    VGK
    WRIST2/24
    SNAP3/10
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN1/9
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/14
    WPG
    VGK
    Off the rush
    1 G on 18
    1.92 xG
    6 G on 26
    2.44 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 4
    0.57 xG
    0 G on 7
    0.91 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-16, VGK 2-for-24. VGK scored 6 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 · 32/38 · .842
    -1.6
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/40.9-0.1
    Medium4/283.0-1.0
    Low1/350.5-0.5

    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

    C. Hart
    VGK · 21/23 · .913
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.9-0.1
    Medium1/131.5+0.5
    Low0/260.5+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

    85 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    WPG
    32 shots
    2
    Final
    85 shots
    VGK
    53 shots
    6
    WPG attackVGK attack
    WPG VGK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG left, VGK 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. Eichel
    #9 · C · VGK
    1 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 17:34 on ice · +3
    M. Stone
    #61 · R · VGK
    1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:06 on ice · +3
    M. Scheifele
    #55 · C · WPG
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:02 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Apr 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:36 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

    Vegas is the model's choice here. The projection runs 2.2 to 2.7 goals in Vegas's favor, with the Golden Knights sitting at 58% to win. The setup is simple: the Knights own the underlying play.

    Vegas controls the shot matrix at 5v5. The Knights generate 54.0% expected goals to Winnipeg's 48.0%, a meaningful separation. That edge extends to possession: Vegas drives Corsi at 52.0% against Winnipeg's 49.0%, which means territorial tilt all night. This is not variance. This is structure.

    The variance story sits elsewhere. Vegas's PDO checks in at 0.983—running cold. That's the kind of regression waiting to correct. Winnipeg's 0.998 is neutral, which means the gap on the scoresheet shouldn't last.

    C. Hart draws the back-to-back, which opens the question: does Winnipeg start him or go to the bench? A fatigued Hart is Vegas's edge; a fresh backup flips it. Watch for the pregame call.

    The player tiers tell the story of why Vegas owns this. Winnipeg leans on Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6 goals, 6 assists, 3 high-danger goals, 8.6% shooting) and Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25 goals, 30 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 13.0% shooting). Connor's volume is there, but his shooting rate is inflated—that's not sustainable. Niederreiter is the sharper threat: his high-danger conversion is real.

    Vegas counters with Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60, 3 goals, 6 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 4.1% shooting, though likely out) and Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5 goals, 17 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 4.3% shooting). Saad's absence narrows Vegas's flank—meaningful loss. Hertl becomes the heavier lift, his assist volume suggesting he generates for others more than finishes himself.

    The defensive seams are where the night resolves. Winnipeg's Colin Miller is the weak link. Vegas's Rasmus Andersson mirrors that vulnerability. If Vegas's underlying-play advantage translates through the neutral zone, it goes through those gaps. Niederreiter and Connor can close them down, but the model assumes Vegas's shot-generation edge converts faster than Winnipeg's adjustments.

    Vegas by a goal, PDO correction in tow.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 58%
    58%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    42%
    58%
    WPG50VGK

    VGK by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score WPG 2.2–2.7 VGK; 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 →VGK
    48.0%54.0%
    49.0%52.0%
    2.342.52
    2.552.11
    1.902.12
    2.102.10
    0.9980.983

    VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.983) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    WPG
    7-3-0
    +3 GD · 2d rest
    VGK
    6-1-3
    +6 GD · 1d rest
    0.998
    WPG PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • C. Hart is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    WPG
    Expected in goal
    C. Hellebuyck
    2 days rest.750 last start
    Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    VGK
    Expected in goal
    C. Hart
    back-to-back.938 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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
    VGK
    Brandon Saad3G 6A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
    Tomas Hertl5G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next