Motion-blurred skater in a blue sweater
Breakdown · NYR at DET

Rangers shut out the Red Wings, 2-0

The verdict · earned

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

NYR 2 · DET 0
◆ By the ModelOct 2, 9:22 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

New York won 2-0 and the underlying numbers backed it up cleanly—they controlled quality while Detroit controlled volume, a split the Rangers' goaltending tilted decisively their way.

Detroit held 52% of the shot attempts (23-21), a narrow edge. But the chances told a different story: New York's offensive work was worth 3.34 expected goals to Detroit's 1.65, a 67-33 split that explained the result.

Where it went wrong for Detroit. D. Garand faced 23 shots and stopped every one, a performance 1.65 goals better than the model expected. The Wings generated zero high-danger scoring chances all night. J. Gibson stopped 19 of 20 shots against Rangers chances worth 3.34 expected goals, a showing above expectations. But New York's opportunities were consistently sharper, and the Rangers converted when it mattered.

The goals. S. Durzi opened the scoring on the power play early in the first, a 39-foot slap shot with a 12% model chance. E. Tolvanen sealed it late in the third at 18:44, an empty-netter from 84 feet with a 66% model chance—the turning point of the game.

The Red Wings underperformed their expected goals by 1.65 (generated that many chances, scored zero). New York underperformed theirs by 1.34 (generated 3.34, scored 2). In a game decided by opportunity quality and goaltending, the team that controlled both won decisively.

Three Stars

  • #23 A. Fox (NYR) — 1 assist in 22:50
  • #5 S. Durzi (NYR) — 1 goal in 19:08
  • #94 G. Perreault (NYR) — 1 assist in 15:24

The goals

  • NYR 1–0, 05:12 of the first on the power play. S. Durzi, slap shot from 39 feet, a 12% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Gibson. Assists: G. Perreault, W. Cuylle. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • NYR 2–0, 18:44 of the third into an empty net. E. Tolvanen, wrist shot from 85 feet, a 66% chance by the model. Assists: T. Kartye, A. Fox. Win probability moved 5 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 2
NYR
2
DET
0

Rangers shut out the Red Wings, 2-0

Chances 3.3 – 1.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Rangers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NYR
3.34
DET
1.65
67% of the chances33%

The board read NYR 2, DET 0. The chances read NYR 3.3, DET 1.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NYR
−1.3
goals above expected
NYR3.34 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
DET1.65 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings left 1.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+15
win-probability points
46% → 61% for NYR
DET 100%the game, start to finish
NYR 100%P1 · P2 · P3
NYRP1 05:12 · PP

S. Durzi makes it 1–0.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:12NYRS. DurziPP12%1–0
  2. P3 18:44NYRE. TolvanenEN66%2–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NYR
31 shots
2
Final
60 shots
DET
29 shots
0
NYR attackDET attack
NYR DET Goal
31
shots · 2 in
29
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NYRDET
1 / 3
1.40 xG
High danger
0 / 0
0.00 xG
1 / 16
1.61 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.29 xG
0 / 24
0.33 xG
Low
0 / 31
0.36 xG

High-danger looks: NYR 1 of 3, DET 0 of 0.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Garand
+1.6
NYR · 23/23 · 59:49
Best save · a 14% chance, wrist from 11 ft · P1 18:32
B+
J. Gibson
+1.2
DET · 19/20 · 58:51
Best save · a 24% chance, wrist from 6 ft · P2 08:11
Best skater on the ice
A+
NYR
G. Perreault
R · impact 1.30
15:24
Ice time
0–1
G – A
0.28
Own xG
72%
xG share
Impact · top 4
G. Perreault1.3A+
E. Tolvanen1.0A+
A. Fox1.0A+
T. Kartye0.8A
Report card
NYRDET
OffenseB+D-
DefenseB+D
TransitionB-D+
Special teamsC+F
GoaltendingA-A+
DisciplineBD
LuckC+B-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why NYR won
  1. 01Won on the merits
  2. 02Dangerous off the rush
  3. 03D. Garand tilted the crease
Why DET 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

Rangers shut out the Red Wings, 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 8–11
  1. 05:12NYRS. Durzipower play(G. Perreault, W. Cuylle)1–0

    Slap shot from 39 feet, a 12% chance (off the rush), past J. Gibson. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: V. Gavrikov, J. Veleno, T. Kartye, B. Schneider, J. Chmelar · against J. Faulk, K. Kolesar, M. Rasmussen, M. Kasper, A. Johansson

2ndshots 7–9no goals
    3rdshots 6–3
    1. 18:44NYRE. Tolvanenempty net(T. Kartye, A. Fox)2–0

      Wrist shot from 85 feet, a 66% chance, a near-certain one. Win probability moved 5 points.

    score reads NYR–DET

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.34
    NYR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.046
    NYR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.34Expected goals1.65
    NYR 67% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal23
    3High-danger chances0
    43All attempts (Corsi)45
    Adjusted for score: NYR 45% · DET 55%
    Faceoffs · DET won65%off53%neu43%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NYR1 / 3 · 1.40 xG
    DET0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NYR1 / 16 · 1.61 xG
    DET0 / 14 · 1.29 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NYR0 / 24 · 0.33 xG
    DET0 / 31 · 0.36 xG

    DET went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.29 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NYR
    2 G · 3.34 xG · -1.3
    DET
    0 G · 1.65 xG · -1.6
    01234

    NYR finished -1.3 against expected, DET -1.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NYR
    WRIST1/14
    TIP IN0/6
    SNAP0/5
    SLAP1/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/12
    DET
    WRIST0/14
    TIP IN0/6
    SNAP0/6
    SLAP0/1
    BACKHAND0/2
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/15
    NYR
    DET
    Off the rush
    1 G on 22
    1.85 xG
    0 G on 20
    1.21 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.17 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NYR went 1-for-14, DET 0-for-14.

    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. Garand
    NYR · 23/23 · 1.000
    started · 59:49
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    Attempts faced
    30
    Avg chance faced
    5.5%
    Stopped vs expected
    1.000 vs 0.945
    Rebounds allowed
    4
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    Medium0/141.3+1.3
    Low0/160.4+0.4
    Shorthanded0/30.2+0.2
    Tips & deflections0/60.4+0.4
    The save
    14% chance stopped, a wrist from 11 ft · P1 18:32

    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. Gibson
    DET · 19/20 · .950
    started · 58:51
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    Attempts faced
    29
    Avg chance faced
    7.5%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.966 vs 0.925
    Rebounds allowed
    0
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium1/161.6+0.6
    Low0/120.3+0.3
    Shorthanded1/80.6-0.4
    Tips & deflections0/60.4+0.4
    The save
    24% chance stopped, a wrist from 6 ft · P2 08:11
    The one to have back
    12% chance went in, a slap from 39 ft · P1 05:12

    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: G. Perreault (NYR), 15:24 of ice, 0-1, 72% of the expected goals while he was out.

    NYR18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    G. PerreaultR15:240-172A+
    E. TolvanenR11:261-025A+
    A. FoxD22:500-162A+
    T. KartyeL15:120-136A
    S. DurziD19:081-046A
    W. CuylleL14:430-145A
    P. DorofeyevR17:300-060B
    J. ChmelarR9:000-062B
    M. ZibanejadC21:210-062B
    O. BjorkstrandR13:220-084B
    A. LafrenièreL21:300-074B
    J. MillerC17:280-067B
    B. SchneiderD16:360-055C
    V. GavrikovD21:070-054C
    M. PetterssonD21:560-046D
    N. LabaC11:540-015D
    J. VelenoC13:230-051D
    A. SmitsD11:150-053F
    DET18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    M. KasperC10:390-074A
    M. Brandsegg-NygårdR9:390-088A
    M. AppletonC10:180-054B
    B. ChiarotD18:310-063C
    A. Sandin-PellikkaD16:270-058C
    K. KolesarR10:120-078C
    J. CompherL16:280-043C
    M. SeiderD25:050-033C
    V. ArvidssonL16:170-035C
    E. FinnieC14:240-040D
    A. JohanssonD17:180-041D
    A. DeBrincatR19:430-032D
    N. DanielsonC9:410-074D
    L. RaymondL20:010-025D
    M. RasmussenC14:430-051F
    A. CoppC22:170-017F
    J. FaulkD21:290-037F
    A. JohanssonD19:100-024F

    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, NYR: M. Robertson, M. Rempe, S. Morrow. Scratched, DET: A. Englund, W. Wallinder, C. Mazur. Referees Kelly Sutherland and Trevor Hanson; linesmen Libor Suchanek and Kilian McNamara.

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionNYRDET
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    NYR Created 3.34 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (1.40 xG) and 22 rush shots (1.85 xG).

    DET Created 1.65 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 0 high-danger shots (0.00 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.21 xG).

    B+
    87
    D-
    62
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    NYR Allowed 1.65 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 0 high-danger shots (0.00 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.21 xG).

    DET Allowed 3.34 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (1.40 xG) and 22 rush shots (1.85 xG).

    B+
    88
    D
    63
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    NYR Rush shots 22–20, rush xG 1.85–1.21 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    DET Rush shots 20–22, rush xG 1.21–1.85 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    B-
    82
    D+
    68
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    NYR 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.60 PP xG.

    DET 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.21 PP xG.

    C+
    79
    F
    52
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    NYR +1.65 goals saved above expected on 23 shots against.

    DET +2.34 goals saved above expected on 20 shots against.

    A-
    91
    A+
    98
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    NYR Took 4 penalties for 11 PIM vs 6 for 15 on the other side.

    DET Took 6 penalties for 15 PIM vs 4 for 11 on the other side.

    B
    85
    D
    65
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    NYR Finishing -1.34 goals vs xG plus +1.65 GSAx of save luck = +0.31 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    DET Finishing -1.65 goals vs xG plus +2.34 GSAx of save luck = +0.69 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    C+
    77
    B-
    81
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    STRENGTHDET

    J. Gibson stole it

    J. Gibson stopped 19 of 20 (0.950) — +2.34 goals saved above expected in a 2-goal game.

    WARNINGDET

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 22 rush shots worth 1.85 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    STRENGTHNYR

    Won on the merits

    The Rangers controlled 67% of expected goals (3.34–1.65) and won 2-0 — result matched process.

    STRENGTHNYR

    Dangerous off the rush

    1 goals on 22 rush shots worth 1.85 xG.

    LUCKDET

    Cold finishing night

    Scored 0 on 1.65 xG — -1.65 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

    STRENGTHNYR

    D. Garand tilted the crease

    D. Garand stopped 23 of 23 (1.000), +1.65 goals above expected.

    60 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NYR
    31 shots
    2
    Final
    60 shots
    DET
    29 shots
    0
    NYR attackDET attack
    NYR DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NYR left, DET 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
    A. Fox
    #23 · D · NYR
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:50 on ice · +1
    S. Durzi
    #5 · D · NYR
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 19:08 on ice
    G. Perreault
    #94 · R · NYR
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:24 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Oct 2
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelOct 2, 12:08 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

    Detroit holds the edge here. The model projects a 3.0 to 3.4 goal game with the Red Wings at 55% win probability — a lean built on rest and a Rangers team running hot on luck it won't keep.

    The structural advantages stack quickly. Detroit arrives on 5 days of rest while New York plays on 0, a fatigue gap that compounds the Rangers' goaltending uncertainty: I. Shesterkin projects to start the second night of a back-to-back, or the Rangers go to a backup. Either way, Detroit's freshness meets New York's tired or untested net.

    The Rangers' numbers suggest a correction is brewing. Their save percentage luck is 0.983, well below neutral, meaning they've allowed fewer goals than their shot quality should have yielded. Teams don't run that cold forever. At even strength, New York controls 51.7% of expected goals and 48.9% of shot attempts — solid structural dominion on paper that the scoreboard hasn't yet reflected. When that reversal comes, it can happen fast, but Detroit's rest advantage means it likely comes too late to save this game.

    I. Shesterkin brings conflicting signals. In his last two games, he's earned 3.3 goals above the shot quality he faced, and he's stopping 93.6% of attempts overall — strong personal performance. The back-to-back context makes that irrelevant if New York goes to a backup, and makes it a genuine liability if Shesterkin starts tired.

    Detroit's path is straightforward: impose structure on tired legs, force the Rangers to earn every possession, and lean on rest advantage to suffocate New York's offense before the Rangers' shooting luck lifts.

    The slot will settle it. New York's highest-volume scoring zone is the slot, where they've scored eight goals on 31 attempts — a 26% conversion rate demanding tight coverage. Detroit's equivalent is less lethal: four goals on 28 attempts from the same area. The team that defends high-danger space wins the game, and Detroit gets to defend it with fresh bodies.

    Expect Detroit to lean hard on New York's rest disadvantage. The Rangers' luck will reverse, their expected goals will convert at a higher rate. The model says that happens, but Detroit's structure and freshness make it a race against the clock — one the Red Wings are favored to win.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DET 55%
    55%
    DET
    Model favorite
    45%
    55%
    NYR50DET

    DET by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NYR 3.0–3.4 DET; 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
    Form · Last 0–2
    NYR
    1-1-0
    +1 GD · 0d rest
    DET
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 5d rest
    0.983
    NYR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.000
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    WARNINGNYR

    I. Shesterkin on a back-to-back

    I. Shesterkin projects to start on no rest, the second night of a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or tired legs.

    Test the goalie early with traffic and second-chance pressure.

    TACTICALDET

    Rest edge

    The Red Wings come in on 5 days of rest; the other side on 0.

    Push the pace early against tired legs.

    WARNINGNYR

    Regression watch: Rangers

    The Rangers' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

    Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

    TACTICALNYR

    Hot Zone: Rangers

    Their most productive scoring zone over last 5 games.

    Most goals from slot (8G on 31 shots, 26%) — deny that lane

    Regression watch
    • The Rangers' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • Goalie matchup: I. Shesterkin (+3.3 GSAx in 2 GP, 93.6% SV) vs J. Gibson.
    • I. Shesterkin is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Rangers' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Red Wings have 5 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    NYR
    vs TBL · Thu, Oct 1
    Expected in goal
    I. Shesterkin
    back-to-back.960 last start60:00 played
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.
    Forwards · 12
    • J. Miller15:33
    • A. Lafrenière15:15
    • P. Dorofeyev13:44
    • E. Tolvanen14:18
    • T. Kartye14:47
    • O. Bjorkstrand12:25
    • N. Laba16:14
    • J. Chmelar06:18
    • W. Cuylle14:12
    • J. Veleno14:45
    • M. Zibanejad18:53
    • G. Perreault10:46
    Defence · 6
    • B. Schneider18:48
    • S. Durzi20:54
    • A. Smits14:09
    • A. Fox19:04
    • M. Pettersson21:38
    • V. Gavrikov23:20
    DET
    preseason · vs CBJ · Sat, Sep 26
    Expected in goal
    J. Gibson
    5 days rest.857 last start58:11 played
    Forwards · 12
    • A. Copp20:28
    • L. Raymond18:44
    • M. Rasmussen17:02
    • M. Brandsegg-Nygård13:00
    • N. Danielson12:20
    • V. Arvidsson16:41
    • C. Mazur09:52
    • J. Compher12:34
    • K. Kolesar12:19
    • E. Finnie16:34
    • M. Kasper15:26
    • A. DeBrincat19:20
    Defence · 6
    • B. Chiarot18:13
    • A. Johansson17:31
    • A. Johansson14:56
    • A. Sandin-Pellikka20:21
    • M. Seider25:33
    • J. Faulk16:41

    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.

    Keep going

    Where to next