Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
← Wed, Sep 23 · the slate
Breakdown · MIN at DAL · Preseason

Stars shut out the Wild, 2-0

FinalWed, Sep 23
MINMinnesota Wild0DALDallas Stars2
The verdict · earned

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

MIN 0 · DAL 2
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 25, 12:56 AMxG: xgboost-0.765Raw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Stars beat the Wild 2-0 and the underlying numbers backed it up — they controlled 63% of 5v5 expected goals (3.33–1.96).

The numbers behind the result. The Stars held 50% of shot attempts (24–24 on goal). Expected goals finished 3.33–1.96 (63–37% split), and high-danger chances went 8–2.

Variance watch. The Stars underperformed their xG by 1.33 goals; the Wild underperformed theirs by 1.96.

Turning point. Esa Lindell's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 10:39).

The goals

  • DAL 0–1, 15:33 of the second. M. Seminoff, snap shot from 21 feet, a 26% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Wallstedt. Assists: K. Capobianco. 4 seconds after a DAL blocked shot by C. Lambos. Win probability moved 23 points.
  • DAL 0–2, 10:39 of the third. E. Lindell, wrist shot from 28 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Wallstedt. Assists: K. Capobianco, A. Shlaine. Win probability moved 12 points.

Goaltending

  • J. Wallstedt (MIN): 22/24 saves, 0.917 SV% (+1.33 vs expected)
  • R. Poirier (DAL): 24/24 saves, 1.000 SV% (+1.96 vs expected)

Storylines

  • MIN generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • J. Wallstedt (MIN) stopped 1.3 goals above expected.
  • DAL generated far more dangerous chances — 0.074 xG/shot vs 0.044. Quality over quantity.
  • DAL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • MIN created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • MIN underperformed xG by 2.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • R. Poirier (DAL) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.

Final: MIN 0 – DAL 2

Data: NHL play-by-play and shift charts, Backcheck xG model

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Preseason · Sep 23
MIN
0
DAL
2

Stars shut out the Wild, 2-0

Chances 2.0 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
1.96
DAL
3.33
37% of the chances63%

The board read MIN 0, DAL 2. The chances read MIN 2.0, DAL 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
−1.3
goals above expected
DAL3.33 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN1.96 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild left 2.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+23
win-probability points
53% → 76% for DAL
DAL 100%the game, start to finish
MIN 100%P1 · P2 · P3
DALP2 15:33

M. Seminoff makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 15:33DALM. Seminoff26%0–1
  2. P3 10:39DALE. Lindell11%0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
33 shots
0
Final
65 shots
DAL
32 shots
2
MIN attackDAL attack
MIN DAL Goal
33
shots · 0 in
32
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINDAL
0 / 2
0.38 xG
High danger
1 / 8
1.68 xG
0 / 12
1.19 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.41 xG
0 / 31
0.39 xG
Low
0 / 24
0.23 xG

High-danger looks: MIN 0 of 2, DAL 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
R. Poirier
+2.0
DAL · 24/24 · 59:29
Best save · a 20% chance, snap from 27 ft · P1 11:08
B+
J. Wallstedt
+1.3
MIN · 22/24 · 57:51
Best save · a 23% chance, snap from 8 ft · P1 13:37
Best skater on the ice
A+
DAL
K. Capobianco
D · impact 1.84
16:42
Ice time
0–2
G – A
0.01
Own xG
58%
xG share
Impact · top 4
K. Capobianco1.8A+
E. Lindell1.3A+
A. Shlaine1.0A+
M. Seminoff0.9A
Report card
MINDAL
OffenseD+A-
DefenseFB
TransitionFA
Special teamsFF
GoaltendingB+A
DisciplineD-A-
LuckC-B-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why DAL won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02R. Poirier tilted the crease
  3. 03Won on the merits
Why MIN lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars shut out the Wild, 2-0

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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 5–4no goals
    2ndshots 8–11
    1. 15:33DALM. Seminoff(K. Capobianco)0–1

      Snap shot from 21 feet, a 26% chance (off the rush), past J. Wallstedt. 4s after a DAL block. Win probability moved 23 points.On the ice: T. Myers, A. Shlaine, L. Bichsel, E. Hemming, D. Hryckowian · against M. Kiersted, C. Bankier, J. Joshua, K. Lemire, B. Dexheimer

    3rdshots 11–9
    1. 10:39DALE. Lindell(K. Capobianco, A. Shlaine)0–2

      Wrist shot from 28 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past J. Wallstedt. Win probability moved 12 points.On the ice: T. Myers, R. Faksa, O. Bäck, J. Kiviranta, L. Bichsel · against J. Kirkland, M. Kiersted, H. Haight, R. Heidt, B. Dexheimer

    score reads MIN–DAL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.33
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.044
    DAL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    50.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.96Expected goals3.33
    DAL 63% of the chance quality
    24Shots on goal24
    2High-danger chances8
    45All attempts (Corsi)45
    Adjusted for score: MIN 52% · DAL 48%
    Faceoffs · DAL won45%off0%neu41%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MIN0 / 2 · 0.38 xG
    DAL1 / 8 · 1.68 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MIN0 / 12 · 1.19 xG
    DAL1 / 13 · 1.41 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MIN0 / 31 · 0.39 xG
    DAL0 / 24 · 0.23 xG

    MIN went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.19 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MIN
    0 G · 1.96 xG · -2.0
    DAL
    2 G · 3.33 xG · -1.3
    01234

    MIN finished -2.0 against expected, DAL -1.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MIN
    SNAP0/17
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/4
    WRIST0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/12
    DAL
    SNAP1/18
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/2
    WRIST1/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/13
    MIN
    DAL
    Off the rush
    0 G on 17
    1.16 xG
    2 G on 23
    2.89 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.40 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.31 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: MIN went 0-for-17, DAL 1-for-18. DAL 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
    J. Wallstedt
    MIN · 22/24 · .917
    started · 57:51 · loss
    +1.3
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    Attempts faced
    31
    Avg chance faced
    10.7%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.935 vs 0.893
    Rebounds allowed
    2
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/81.7+0.7
    Medium1/131.4+0.4
    Low0/100.2+0.2
    Shorthanded0/60.5+0.5
    Tips & deflections0/60.5+0.5
    The save
    23% chance stopped, a snap from 8 ft · P1 13:37
    The one to have back
    11% chance went in, a wrist from 28 ft · P3 10:39

    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

    R. Poirier
    DAL · 24/24 · 1.000
    started · 59:29 · win
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    Attempts faced
    33
    Avg chance faced
    5.9%
    Stopped vs expected
    1.000 vs 0.941
    Rebounds allowed
    5
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium0/121.2+1.2
    Low0/190.4+0.4
    Shorthanded0/50.5+0.5
    Tips & deflections0/50.3+0.3
    The save
    20% chance stopped, a snap from 27 ft · P1 11:08

    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

    Every skater who dressed

    Who played

    Rated on what they produced and how fast

    Best skater on the ice by our rating: K. Capobianco (DAL), 16:42 of ice, 0-2, 58% of the expected goals while he was out.

    MIN18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    M. ShawC11:320-054A
    C. StramelC20:590-068A
    D. SpacekD24:020-059B
    T. PitlickC14:030-076B
    H. HaightC16:400-046B
    D. HuntD21:310-060C
    N. SturmC17:520-036C
    D. GambrellC17:540-041D
    C. LambosD17:470-031D
    J. KirklandC13:330-038D
    K. LemireR11:360-034D
    C. BankierC11:340-031D
    R. HeidtC13:010-026D
    J. JoshuaL10:540-025F
    V. Gustafsson NybergD17:510-022F
    B. DexheimerD18:530-021F
    R. LorenzL13:550-05F
    M. KierstedD16:320-026F
    DAL18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    K. CapobiancoD16:420-258A+
    E. LindellD19:411-068A+
    A. ShlaineC13:290-175A+
    M. SeminoffR11:131-036A
    J. BennL18:200-078A
    A. HyryR18:240-077A
    M. HeiskanenD24:110-083B
    E. HemmingR15:030-068B
    S. SteelC18:010-077B
    M. SgarbossaC18:270-071B
    J. KivirantaL12:540-050C
    E. RickwoodC12:160-050C
    D. HryckowianR13:430-062C
    T. MyersD19:580-057C
    O. BäckC13:560-044C
    L. BichselD21:110-058C
    R. FaksaC13:380-050D
    T. TaylorD13:240-048D

    xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

    Scratched, MIN: N. Foligno, Z. Bogosian, J. Spurgeon, M. Foligno, C. Pickard, B. Coleman and 32 more. Scratched, DAL: M. Duchene, C. McKenzie, T. Seguin, C. Blackwell, K. Burroughs, M. Rantanen and 32 more. Referees Tom Chmielewski and Nick Isaacson; linesmen Dylan Blujus and Joe Mahon.

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionMINDAL
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    MIN Created 1.96 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.38 xG) and 17 rush shots (1.16 xG).

    DAL Created 3.33 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 8 high-danger shots (1.68 xG) and 23 rush shots (2.89 xG).

    D+
    67
    A-
    92
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    MIN Allowed 3.33 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 8 high-danger shots (1.68 xG) and 23 rush shots (2.89 xG).

    DAL Allowed 1.96 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.38 xG) and 17 rush shots (1.16 xG).

    F
    58
    B
    83
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    MIN Rush shots 17–23, rush xG 1.16–2.89 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    DAL Rush shots 23–17, rush xG 2.89–1.16 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    F
    55
    A
    95
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    MIN 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.00 PP xG.

    DAL 0-for-5 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.53 PP xG.

    F
    48
    F
    52
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    MIN +1.33 goals saved above expected on 24 shots against.

    DAL +1.96 goals saved above expected on 24 shots against.

    B+
    88
    A
    95
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    MIN Took 7 penalties for 17 PIM vs 4 for 11 on the other side.

    DAL Took 4 penalties for 11 PIM vs 7 for 17 on the other side.

    D-
    60
    A-
    90
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    MIN Finishing -1.96 goals vs xG plus +1.33 GSAx of save luck = -0.63 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    DAL Finishing -1.33 goals vs xG plus +1.96 GSAx of save luck = +0.63 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    C-
    70
    B-
    80
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    WARNINGMIN

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 23 rush shots worth 2.89 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    STRENGTHDAL

    Dangerous off the rush

    2 goals on 23 rush shots worth 2.89 xG.

    LUCKMIN

    Cold finishing night

    Scored 0 on 1.96 xG — -1.96 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

    STRENGTHDAL

    R. Poirier tilted the crease

    R. Poirier stopped 24 of 24 (1.000), +1.96 goals above expected.

    WARNINGMIN

    Paraded to the penalty box

    Took 7 penalties for 17 minutes (opponent: 4 for 11).

    Cut the stick infractions — the penalty differential is a controllable.

    STRENGTHDAL

    Won on the merits

    The Stars controlled 63% of expected goals (3.33–1.96) and won 2-0 — result matched process.

    65 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MIN
    33 shots
    0
    Final
    65 shots
    DAL
    32 shots
    2
    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
    K. Capobianco
    #20 · D · DAL
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:42 on ice · +2
    E. Lindell
    #23 · D · DAL
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 19:41 on ice · +1
    A. Shlaine
    #67 · C · DAL
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 13:29 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page