Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
Breakdown · MIN at NSH

Wild run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

MIN 3 · NSH 1
◆ By the ModelOct 1, 11:08 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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

Minnesota's 3-1 win over Nashville was decided long before the final buzzer. The Wild's total control on the underlying numbers—both in shot volume and in quality of chances—left no path for a comeback.

The story was expected goals. Minnesota controlled 63% of expected goals—3.72 to Nashville's 2.21. This wasn't a close game dressed up by luck; the Wild were simply better at generating dangerous hockey.

What made it decisive: Minnesota's transition attack overwhelmed Nashville. The Predators gave up 35 rush shots worth 2.82 expected goals, allowing 2 goals on those chances—a gap that widened across all three periods. R. Josi scored on a 4% chance to cut it to 2-1, a moment that could have changed the momentum, but Minnesota tightened immediately.

The Predators held 40% of shot attempts, a respectable number that masked their underlying problem: they generated only 2.21 expected goals to Minnesota's 3.72. When your opponent controls that kind of high-quality scoring area, volume doesn't matter.

Both goalies played above their workload. J. Wallstedt made 19 saves on 20 shots and stopped 1.21 goals more than the expected goals model would have projected. J. Saros faced 30 shots, stopped 27, and outperformed his model by 0.72 goals—a strong game in a losing effort. Yet even Saros's overperformance couldn't overcome the gulf in chances.

Minnesota's 3-1 result understated their dominance. K. Kaprizov's insurance goal in the third sealed it, a rush play that capped Minnesota's control from start to finish.

The goals

  • MIN 1–0, 09:35 of the first. N. Foligno, wrist shot from 30 feet, a 5% chance by the model (a rebound), past J. Saros. Assists: M. McCarron, O. Maatta. 3 seconds after a MIN shot by M. McCarron. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • MIN 2–0, 13:48 of the first on the power play. B. Coleman, wrist shot from 6 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Saros. Assists: B. Brink, D. Yurov. 10 seconds after a MIN blocked shot by M. Wood. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • NSH 2–1, 09:23 of the second. R. Josi, slap shot from 31 feet, a 4% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Wallstedt. Assists: F. Forsberg, S. Stamkos. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • MIN 3–1, 04:42 of the third. K. Kaprizov, tip-in from 14 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Saros. Assists: Q. Hughes, J. Spurgeon. 10 seconds after a MIN hit by K. Kaprizov. Win probability moved 16 points.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 1
MIN
3
NSH
1

Wild run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.7 – 2.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.72
NSH
2.21
63% of the chances37%

The board read MIN 3, NSH 1. The chances read MIN 3.7, NSH 2.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
−0.7
goals above expected
MIN3.72 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH2.21 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
The swing
+16
win-probability points
46% → 62% for MIN
NSH 100%the game, start to finish
MIN 100%P1 · P2 · P3
MINP1 09:35

N. Foligno makes it 1–0.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 09:35MINN. Foligno5%1–0
  2. P1 13:48MINB. ColemanPP14%2–0
  3. P2 09:23NSHR. Josi4%2–1
  4. P3 04:42MINK. Kaprizov8%3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
49 shots
3
Final
84 shots
NSH
35 shots
1
MIN attackNSH attack
MIN NSH Goal
49
shots · 3 in
35
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINNSH
0 / 5
1.12 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.39 xG
2 / 22
2.07 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.52 xG
1 / 35
0.53 xG
Low
1 / 31
0.30 xG

High-danger looks: MIN 0 of 5, NSH 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Wallstedt
+1.2
MIN · 19/20 · 59:14
Best save · a 20% chance, snap from 14 ft · P1 03:38
B
J. Saros
+0.7
NSH · 27/30 · 58:19
Best save · a 30% chance, wrist from 17 ft · P3 05:54
Best skater on the ice
A+
MIN
K. Kaprizov
L · impact 1.87
20:53
Ice time
1–0
G – A
0.57
Own xG
80%
xG share
Impact · top 4
K. Kaprizov1.9A+
Q. Hughes1.8A+
M. McCarron1.4A+
B. Brink1.1A
Report card
MINNSH
OffenseAC-
DefenseC+F
TransitionB+D-
Special teamsB-F
GoaltendingB+B-
DisciplineCC
LuckC+C-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why MIN won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03J. Wallstedt tilted the crease
Why NSH lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Power play came up empty
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild run the Predators 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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 9–6
  1. 09:35MINN. Foligno(M. McCarron, O. Maatta)1–0

    Wrist shot from 30 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (a rebound), past J. Saros. 3s after a MIN shot by M. McCarron. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: Z. Bogosian, R. Hartman, Y. Trenin, B. Brink, D. Hunt · against R. Colton, N. Hague, N. Hoglander, M. Bourque, A. Wilsby

  2. 13:48MINB. Colemanpower play(B. Brink, D. Yurov)2–0

    Wrist shot from 6 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Saros. 10s after a MIN block. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: N. Foligno, M. Foligno, J. Brodin, O. Maatta, M. McCarron · against J. Marchessault, F. Forsberg, N. Hague, M. Bourque, R. Ufko

2ndshots 9–7
  1. 09:23NSHR. Josi(F. Forsberg, S. Stamkos)2–1

    Slap shot from 31 feet, a 4% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Wallstedt. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: B. Skjei, N. Perbix, J. Drury, A. Edstrom, R. Schaefer · against J. Spurgeon, R. Hartman, K. Kaprizov, Q. Hughes, B. Brink

3rdshots 12–7
  1. 04:42MINK. Kaprizov(Q. Hughes, J. Spurgeon)3–1

    Tip-in from 14 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Saros. 10s after a MIN hit by K. Kaprizov. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: Z. Bogosian, B. Coleman, D. Hunt, D. Yurov, M. Shabanov · against F. Forsberg, N. Perbix, J. Drury, A. Edstrom, A. Wilsby

score reads MIN–NSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.72
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.7
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.027
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
56.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.72Expected goals2.21
MIN 63% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal20
5High-danger chances2
62All attempts (Corsi)47
Adjusted for score: MIN 52% · NSH 48%
Faceoffs · NSH won50%off56%neu52%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN0 / 5 · 1.12 xG
NSH0 / 2 · 0.39 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN2 / 22 · 2.07 xG
NSH0 / 14 · 1.52 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN1 / 35 · 0.53 xG
NSH1 / 31 · 0.30 xG

NSH went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.52 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
3 G · 3.72 xG · -0.7
NSH
1 G · 2.21 xG · -1.2
012345

MIN finished -0.7 against expected, NSH -1.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
WRIST2/30
SNAP0/8
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/3
TIP IN1/4
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/13
NSH
WRIST0/20
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/5
SLAP1/4
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/12
MIN
NSH
Off the rush
2 G on 35
2.82 xG
1 G on 24
1.98 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.30 xG
0 G on 3
0.14 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 2-for-30, NSH 0-for-20. MIN 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 · 19/20 · .950
started · 59:14 · win
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
Attempts faced
35
Avg chance faced
6.3%
Stopped vs expected
0.971 vs 0.937
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium0/141.5+1.5
Low1/190.3-0.7
Shorthanded0/90.8+0.8
Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1
The save
20% chance stopped, a snap from 14 ft · P1 03:38
The one to have back
4% chance went in, a slap from 31 ft · P2 09:23

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

J. Saros
NSH · 27/30 · .900
started · 58:19 · loss
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
Attempts faced
49
Avg chance faced
7.6%
Stopped vs expected
0.939 vs 0.924
Rebounds allowed
3 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.1+1.1
Medium2/222.1+0.1
Low1/220.5-0.5
Shorthanded1/111.0+0.0
Tips & deflections1/40.3-0.7
The save
30% chance stopped, a wrist from 17 ft · P3 05:54
The one to have back
5% chance went in, a wrist from 30 ft · P1 09:35

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. Kaprizov (MIN), 20:53 of ice, 1-0, 80% of the expected goals while he was out.

MIN18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
K. KaprizovL20:531-080A+
Q. HughesD27:300-167A+
M. McCarronC13:240-168A+
B. BrinkR11:370-159A
N. FolignoL12:291-062A
D. YurovR12:290-178A
B. ColemanL13:441-054A
M. BoldyL21:280-068A
J. Eriksson EkC20:200-070B
O. MaattaD21:340-155B
J. SpurgeonD19:090-150B
Z. BogosianD14:320-079B
M. ShabanovR15:090-087C
M. FolignoL12:160-071C
D. HuntD10:060-071C
J. BrodinD20:280-046C
R. HartmanR12:540-059D
Y. TreninC12:440-034D
NSH18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
S. StamkosC18:460-157B
F. ForsbergL19:290-145B
R. JosiD24:531-038B
R. O'ReillyC21:310-051C
A. EdstromC10:500-039C
R. ColtonC12:150-053C
R. UfkoD15:270-054C
M. BourqueC17:250-040D
R. SchaeferL11:350-032D
A. KerfootC13:200-035D
J. MarchessaultR17:200-048D
N. PerbixD18:040-036D
N. HoglanderL10:320-033D
A. WilsbyD16:050-022F
M. WoodR17:220-033F
N. HagueD15:230-026F
B. SkjeiD20:530-028F
J. DruryC12:500-023F

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. Sturm, D. Spacek. Scratched, NSH: I. Lyubushkin, J. Ahcan, W. Trudeau. Referees Chris Rooney and Jake Brenk; linesmen Ryan Gibbons and Ben O'Quinn.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionMINNSH
Offense
▸Basis

MIN Created 3.72 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.12 xG) and 35 rush shots (2.82 xG).

NSH Created 2.21 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.39 xG) and 24 rush shots (1.98 xG).

A
94
C-
72
Defense
▸Basis

MIN Allowed 2.21 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.39 xG) and 24 rush shots (1.98 xG).

NSH Allowed 3.72 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.12 xG) and 35 rush shots (2.82 xG).

C+
78
F
56
Transition
▸Basis

MIN Rush shots 35–24, rush xG 2.82–1.98 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

NSH Rush shots 24–35, rush xG 1.98–2.82 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

B+
89
D-
61
Special teams
▸Basis

MIN 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.79 PP xG.

NSH 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.78 PP xG.

B-
81
F
56
Goaltending
▸Basis

MIN +1.21 goals saved above expected on 20 shots against.

NSH +0.72 goals saved above expected on 30 shots against.

B+
87
B-
82
Discipline
▸Basis

MIN Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

NSH Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

C
75
C
75
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

MIN Finishing -0.72 goals vs xG plus +1.21 GSAx of save luck = +0.49 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

NSH Finishing -1.21 goals vs xG plus +0.72 GSAx of save luck = -0.49 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C+
79
C-
71
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGNSH

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 35 rush shots worth 2.82 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHMIN

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 35 rush shots worth 2.82 xG.

WARNINGMIN

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 24 rush shots worth 1.98 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHNSH

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 24 rush shots worth 1.98 xG.

LUCKMIN

Wasted the best looks

0-for-5 on high-danger chances worth 1.12 xG — that conversion rate won't stay at zero.

STRENGTHNSH

J. Saros was perfect on high danger

J. Saros stopped all 5 high-danger shots he faced (100% HD save rate).

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MIN
49 shots
3
Final
84 shots
NSH
35 shots
1
MIN attackNSH attack
MIN NSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN left, NSH 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
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 27:30 on ice · +1
R. Josi
#59 · D · NSH
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:53 on ice
O. Maatta
#3 · D · MIN
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:34 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
Keep going

Where to next