Recap · WPG at EDM · Preseason

Oilers pull away from the Jets

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

◆ By the ModelSep 19, 10:42 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity

Away

WPG

Winnipeg Jets

Home

EDM

Edmonton Oilers

FINAL

Process vs result

The underlying story

2.88Expected goals3.21

53% share for the better side

21Shot attempts (SOG)28

2High-danger chances3

46Corsi (all attempts)61

Score-adjusted: 48% / 52%

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Oilers' 5–2 victory is a variance story: expected goals split 3.21–2.88 (53–47%), nearly even, yet Edmonton outperformed that xG by 1.79 goals. That gap explains the three-goal margin.

T. Jarry was the keystone. The goaltender saved 1.20 goals above expected on 16 shots (0.938 SV%), anchoring every high-danger sequence Edmonton's defense allowed. The real separation came in transition: four goals on 27 rush attempts (2.33 xG), a conversion rate reflecting openness the Jets couldn't seal off.

The underlying numbers. Oilers held 57% of shot attempts (28–21) and 3–2 on high-danger chances. T. Milic (23 saves, 0.852 SV%, -0.79 xG) faced the same quality and came short.

The performers. E. Bouchard led with four assists in 25:09. R. Shea (1G, 2A in 22:31) and C. McDavid (1G, 1A in 19:13) converted. M. Tomkins appeared late (4/5 saves).

The breakdown. Winnipeg's transition defense fractured—27 rush attempts worth 2.33 xG became four goals. This was skaters losing the race to pucks, not a goaltending collapse.

Special teams went silent both ways (both: F). Discipline was neutral (Winnipeg: B-, Edmonton: C-). Edmonton finished better, executed transition, and turned a thin xG edge into a 5–2 win that the underlying metrics never predicted.

Why the Oilers won

01Dangerous off the rush
02E. Bouchard led the way
03T. Jarry tilted the crease
04The moment it turned
05R. Shea made a difference

Why the Jets lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Cold finishing night
03T. Milic gave one back
04PDO ran cold
050-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.25 PP xG.

Graded vs a league-average game

Report card

DimensionWPGEDM

Offense

▸Basis

WPG Created 2.88 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.70 xG) and 21 rush shots (1.84 xG).

EDM Created 3.21 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.73 xG) and 27 rush shots (2.33 xG).

B-

Defense

▸Basis

WPG Allowed 3.21 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.73 xG) and 27 rush shots (2.33 xG).

EDM Allowed 2.88 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.70 xG) and 21 rush shots (1.84 xG).

C-

Transition

▸Basis

WPG Rush shots 21–27, rush xG 1.84–2.33 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

EDM Rush shots 27–21, rush xG 2.33–1.84 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D+

Special teams

▸Basis

WPG 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.25 PP xG.

EDM 0-for-1 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.07 PP xG.

Goaltending

▸Basis

WPG -0.79 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.

EDM +0.88 goals saved above expected on 21 shots against.

D+

Discipline

▸Basis

WPG Took 1 penalties for 2 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

EDM Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 1 for 2 on the other side.

B-

C-

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

WPG Finishing -0.88 goals vs xG plus -0.79 GSAx of save luck = -1.67 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

EDM Finishing +1.79 goals vs xG plus +0.88 GSAx of save luck = +2.67 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

D-

Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG1 / 2 · 0.70 xG

EDM1 / 3 · 0.73 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG1 / 17 · 1.80 xG

EDM3 / 15 · 1.97 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG0 / 27 · 0.39 xG

EDM1 / 43 · 0.51 xG

EDM went 3-for-15 from medium danger on 1.97 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

2 G · 2.88 xG · -0.9

EDM

5 G · 3.21 xG · +1.8

0123456

Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)

T. MilicWPG

-0.8

T. JarryEDM

+1.2

M. TomkinsEDM

-0.3

WPG finished -0.9 against expected, EDM +1.8 — T. Jarry (EDM) saved 1.2 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

WRIST1/10

SNAP0/10

BACKHAND1/5

SLAP0/3

TIP IN0/2

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/14

EDM

WRIST2/22

SNAP2/2

BACKHAND1/6

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/3

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/21

WPG

EDM

Off the rush

1 G on 21 · 1.84 xG

4 G on 27 · 2.33 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4 · 0.43 xG

0 G on 3 · 0.29 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-10, EDM 2-for-22. EDM scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types

Three stars · computed, not voted

E. Bouchard

#2 · D · EDM

0 G · 4 A · 3 SOG · 25:09 TOI · +4

R. Shea

#6 · D · EDM

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:31 TOI · +4

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:13 TOI · +4

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

Intelligence · ranked by importance

WARNINGWPGfancoach

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 27 rush shots worth 2.33 xG (4 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

IMP

STRENGTHEDMfancoach

Dangerous off the rush

4 goals on 27 rush shots worth 2.33 xG.

IMP

WARNINGEDMfancoach

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 21 rush shots worth 1.84 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

IMP

LUCKEDMfangm

Ran hot in front of the net

Scored 5 on 3.21 xG — +1.79 above expected. Shooting luck like that regresses.

IMP

STRENGTHWPGfancoach

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 21 rush shots worth 1.84 xG.

IMP

STRENGTHEDMfan

E. Bouchard led the way

4A in 25:09 — the game's first star.

IMP

What the model flagged

T. Jarry (EDM) stopped 1.2 goals above expected.
EDM was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 27 rush chances.
EDM created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
WPG created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
EDM outperformed their expected goals by 1.8 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
T. Jarry (EDM) saved 1.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
M. Tomkins (EDM) saved 1.9 goals above expected — stole the show.

Before the game — the model's pre-game read

Preview · WPG at EDM · 8:00 PM ET · Preseason

The Oilers are the model's lean over the Jets — with PDO regression in play

◆ By the ModelSep 19, 9:37 AMEdited for clarity

Win probability

The model's lean

56%

EDM

Model favorite

44%

56%

WPG50EDM

EDM by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 3.0–3.4 EDM; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates

Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

WPG← edge

edge →EDM

48.9%5v5 xG%52.2%

49.0%Corsi%50.2%

2.97xGF / 603.38

3.10xGA / 603.10

2.79Goals for / gm3.44

3.12Goals against / gm3.23

0.998PDO — luck, not skill0.981

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 0.981) says WPG has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Keys to the game

TACTICALEDMcoach

Shutdown Assignment: Oilers

Key matchup: Neutralize Nino Niederreiter (6G, 0.87 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

IMP

TACTICALWPGcoach

Shutdown Assignment: Jets

Key matchup: Neutralize Zach Hyman (14G, 1.23 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

IMP

STRENGTHEDMfancoach

Zach Hyman drives the Oilers offense

Zach Hyman: 14G 13A, 1.23 xG/60, 1 high-danger goals.

IMP

WARNINGWPGcoachgm

Exploitable minutes: Colin Miller

Colin Miller is on ice for 3.07 xGA/60 and 15 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Colin Miller's shifts with the top line.

IMP

Edmonton's projected to win at 56% probability, calling for a 3.0–3.4 game on the scoreboard. The gap between those numbers is the story: the Oilers are playing better hockey and running unlucky.

At 5v5, Edmonton dominates. The Oilers generate 52.2% of expected goals to Winnipeg's 48.9%, holding a 50.2% Corsi rate. That edge is real. PDO tells the rest: Edmonton sits at 0.981, below sustainable levels, while Winnipeg's is 0.998. Variance favors teams that out-chance opponents. Edmonton qualifies.

Zach Hyman drives the Oilers offense: 14 goals, 13 assists, 1.23 xG/60—the highest rate on either roster—at a 13.0% conversion rate. Stop him and Edmonton's sequence breaks. Winnipeg's counter is Nino Niederreiter: 0.87 xG/60, six goals, three high-danger chances, shooting at 8.6%—a red flag for positive regression. Kyle Connor (25 goals, 0.83 xG/60, 13.0% shooting) is the secondary outlet.

Connor McDavid operates at 0.92 xG/60 with 25 goals and 33 assists, including five high-danger goals. His 13.7% shooting rate is elite. He will create opportunities; the question is whether Winnipeg's defense can absorb the volume. The Oilers' defensive weak link is Jake Walman. Winnipeg's is Colin Miller.

The 56% reflects Edmonton's underlying dominance and PDO regression. Winnipeg has stayed competitive through depth goaltending. But the Oilers should regress upward.

Players to Watch

Zach Hyman (EDM) — 1.23 xG/60, 14G 13A, 1 HD goal, 13.0% shooting
Nino Niederreiter (WPG) — 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting
Kyle Connor (WPG) — 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting
Connor McDavid (EDM) — 0.92 xG/60, 25G 33A, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Source · MoneyPuck skaters

◆ Back to the front page