Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater

Breakdown · EDM at WPG · Preseason

Oilers edge the Jets in overtime

Final / OTTue, Sep 22

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 2 · WPG 1

Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 10:42 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

Edmonton beat Winnipeg 2-1 in overtime when V. Marjala scored at 01:26 of the extra period. A. Iafallo opened the scoring at 13:04 of the first, A. Leppanen tied it at 15:50, and the game headed to overtime tied. Marjala's wrist shot from the high slot finished it.

Winnipeg threw volume at Edmonton but couldn't overcome quality. The Jets generated 23 rush shots worth 1.21 expected goals, while the Oilers made do with just 19 rush shots worth 1.65 expected goals—a sharpness gap that decided the night. The pattern held everywhere: Winnipeg created 2 high-danger chances (0.42 expected goals) to Edmonton's 1 (0.21 expected goals), yet finished with 1.71 expected goals overall against Edmonton's 2.19, a 44-56 split. Winnipeg's offensive output ranked a full goal under the 2.70 league average. Special teams were dormant for both sides—Edmonton 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league average 21%), Winnipeg the same.

The goaltending separated the teams in the final moments. D. Levi stopped 12 of 13 for Edmonton through regulation on a 0.923 save percentage. When C. Ungar took over in overtime, he was perfect: 5 for 5, saving 1.7 goals above expected. D. DiVincentiis kept Winnipeg competitive with 21 saves on 23 shots (0.913 save percentage), but Ungar's flawless relief was the game-breaker.

Winnipeg held 44% of shot attempts (18–23 on goal) and earned 44% of expected goals (1.71–2.19), a balanced night in underlying play that the scoreboard refused to acknowledge. But their offensive workload didn't matter: 1.71 expected goals ranks a full goal below league average, and no special teams help or goaltending heroics could compensate.

R. Nugent-Hopkins and Z. Hyman, the architects of Edmonton's transition attack, both drew assists. N. Niederreiter carried the Jets' load with a helper on their only goal.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Preseason · Sep 22

EDM

WPG

Oilers edge the Jets in overtime

Chances 2.2 – 1.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

EDM

2.19

WPG

1.71

56% of the chances44%

The board read EDM 2, WPG 1. The chances read EDM 2.2, WPG 1.7.

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

Luck check

EDM

−0.2

goals above expected

EDM2.19 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG1.71 expected · 1 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 13:04WPGA. Iafallo0–1
P1 15:50EDMA. Leppanen1–1
OT 01:26EDMV. Marjala2–1

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

Where the shots came from

EDM

35 shots

Final

66 shots

WPG

31 shots

EDM WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

EDMWPG

0 / 1

0.21 xG

High danger

1 / 2

0.42 xG

1 / 11

1.56 xG

Medium

0 / 9

0.85 xG

1 / 38

0.42 xG

Low

0 / 40

0.44 xG

High-danger looks: EDM 0 of 1, WPG 1 of 2.

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

In the net

C. Ungar

+1.7

EDM · 5/5

D. Levi

+0.7

EDM · 12/13

+1 more on the full breakdown

Report card

EDMWPG

OffenseC-D

DefenseBB-

TransitionC+C

Special teamsFF

GoaltendingB-C+

DisciplineCC

LuckC+C-

Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown

Why it went the way it went

Why EDM won

01Dangerous off the rush
02Won on the merits
03The moment it turned

Why WPG lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Cold finishing night
03Power play came up empty

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Oilers edge the Jets 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 / 10 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 6–6

13:04WPGA. Iafallo(N. Niederreiter)0–1
15:50EDMA. Leppanen(R. Nugent-Hopkins)1–1

2ndshots 11–7no goals

3rdshots 5–5no goals

OTshots 1–0

01:26EDMV. Marjala(Z. Hyman)2–1

score reads EDM–WPG

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.19

EDM chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.2

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.020

EDM puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.19Expected goals1.71

EDM 56% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal18

1High-danger chances2

50All attempts (Corsi)51

Adjusted for score: EDM 50% · WPG 50%

Faceoffs · WPG won54%off75%neu65%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

EDM0 / 1 · 0.21 xG

WPG1 / 2 · 0.42 xG

Medium dangermid-range

EDM1 / 11 · 1.56 xG

WPG0 / 9 · 0.85 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

EDM1 / 38 · 0.42 xG

WPG0 / 40 · 0.44 xG

WPG went 0-for-9 from medium danger on 0.85 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

EDM

2 G · 2.19 xG · -0.2

WPG

1 G · 1.71 xG · -0.7

0123

EDM finished -0.2 against expected, WPG -0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

EDM

WRIST2/21

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/4

SNAP0/3

TIP IN0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/15

WPG

WRIST0/15

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/4

SNAP1/3

TIP IN0/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/20

EDM

WPG

Off the rush

1 G on 19

1.65 xG

0 G on 23

1.21 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.34 xG

1 G on 2

0.35 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 2-for-21, WPG 0-for-15.

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

D. Levi

EDM · 12/13 · .923

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.4-0.6

Medium0/90.8+0.8

Low0/400.4+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

C. Ungar

EDM · 5/5 · 1.000

+1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.4-0.6

Medium0/90.8+0.8

Low0/400.4+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

D. DiVincentiis

WPG · 21/23 · .913

+0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium1/111.6+0.6

Low1/380.4-0.6

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

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionEDMWPG

Offense

▸Basis

EDM Created 2.19 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 1 high-danger shots (0.21 xG) and 19 rush shots (1.65 xG).

WPG Created 1.71 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.42 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.21 xG).

C-

Defense

▸Basis

EDM Allowed 1.71 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.42 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.21 xG).

WPG Allowed 2.19 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 1 high-danger shots (0.21 xG) and 19 rush shots (1.65 xG).

B-

Transition

▸Basis

EDM Rush shots 19–23, rush xG 1.65–1.21 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

WPG Rush shots 23–19, rush xG 1.21–1.65 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

C+

Special teams

▸Basis

EDM 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.25 PP xG.

WPG 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.24 PP xG.

Goaltending

▸Basis

EDM +0.71 goals saved above expected on 18 shots against.

WPG +0.19 goals saved above expected on 23 shots against.

B-

C+

Discipline

▸Basis

EDM Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

WPG Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

EDM Finishing -0.19 goals vs xG plus +0.71 GSAx of save luck = +0.52 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

WPG Finishing -0.71 goals vs xG plus +0.19 GSAx of save luck = -0.52 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C+

C-

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

What the model flagged

WARNINGWPG

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 19 rush shots worth 1.65 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHEDM

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 19 rush shots worth 1.65 xG.

TACTICALEDM

The moment it turned

Viljami Marjala's wrist shot from the high slot in overtime swung the game.

WARNINGEDM

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 1.21 xG (0 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHWPG

Dangerous off the rush

0 goals on 23 rush shots worth 1.21 xG.

STRENGTHEDM

R. Nugent-Hopkins led the way

1A in 21:02 — the game's first star.

66 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

EDM

35 shots

Final

66 shots

WPG

31 shots

EDM WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, WPG 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

R. Nugent-Hopkins

#93 · C · EDM

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:02 on ice · +1

Z. Hyman

#18 · L · EDM

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:49 on ice · +2

N. Niederreiter

#62 · R · WPG

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:47 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Sep 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 21, 11:43 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 this at 51% Oilers, 3.2–3.2 on expected goals — about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Edmonton owns the underlying play: 52.2% xG% at 5v5 against Winnipeg's 48.9%, a real but modest edge that also shows in Corsi (50.2% to 49.0%).

Zach Hyman drives the Oilers offense at an elite clip: 1.23 xG/60 with 14 goals, 13 assists, and one high-danger goal. His 13.0% shooting rate is sustainable on that volume. Connor McDavid rounds out the tier-one threats at 0.92 xG/60, 25 goals, 33 assists, and five high-danger looks.

The Jets face a clear assignment: shut down Hyman and make McDavid earn every look. On the flip side, Edmonton's shutdown team must account for Nino Niederreiter, whose 0.87 xG/60 and three high-danger goals in just six goals and six assists suggest his 8.6% shooting rate is ripe for regression. Kyle Connor, at 0.83 xG/60 with 25 goals and 30 assists, poses a steadier but still dangerous threat.

The Oilers are running cold by PDO: 0.981 indicates goal-luck is due for reversal. Winnipeg's 0.998 PDO is neutral, closer to sustainable. Edmonton should be expected to score more from their chances; Winnipeg is where it typically is.

The Oilers' exposure lies with Jake Walman on the back end. Winnipeg's weak point is Colin Miller. Neither is transformative, but both are real leaks.

This is a toss-up because Edmonton has better process and is due for luck, while Winnipeg is hot and positioned to steal a regulation win. The model's 51% for Edmonton reflects legitimate dominance in play-driving, not certainty.

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

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 51%

51%

EDM

Model favorite

51%

49%

EDM50WPG

EDM by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 3.2–3.2 WPG; 16% 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

EDM← edge

edge →WPG

52.2%48.9%

50.2%49.0%

3.382.97

3.103.10

3.442.79

3.233.12

0.9810.998

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 1

EDM

1-0-0

+3 GD · 2d rest

WPG

0-1-0

-3 GD · 2d rest

0.981

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALWPG

Shutdown Assignment: Jets

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

TACTICALEDM

Shutdown Assignment: Oilers

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

STRENGTHEDM

Zach Hyman drives the Oilers offense

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

WARNINGEDM

Exploitable minutes: Jake Walman

Jake Walman is on ice for 2.83 xGA/60 and 38 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Jake Walman's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.2% 5v5 xG vs 48.9%.

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.2% 5v5 xG vs 48.9%.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

EDM

Expected in goal

T. Jarry

2 days rest.938 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +7.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

WPG

Expected in goal

T. Milic

2 days rest.852 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +3.3 GSAx this season

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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page