S. Skinner stole it
S. Skinner stopped 33 of 35 (0.943) — +3.02 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

Winnipeg won 3-2, stealing a game Detroit should have owned. The Red Wings dominated the underlying metrics; S. Skinner simply would not allow it to matter.
The Red Wings controlled expected goals 5.02–3.42 — a nearly full-goal advantage — and held 56% of shot attempts (35–27) at 5v5. Winnipeg's power play overturned that equation: three goals on 12 shots, converting chances the regular game never offered them.
S. Skinner saved 3.02 goals above what his workload demanded. J. Gibson faced lower-quality chances and still surrendered 3 goals on 24 saves; Winnipeg beat him three times on the power play. The differential was clinical: Skinner at 0.943 save percentage against elite danger, Gibson at 0.889 on a night when finishing mattered.
The Red Wings' 7 high-danger chances versus Winnipeg's 4 defined the game's imbalance. E. Finnie cut it to 3-2 early in the third — close enough to sense Detroit's chance — before Winnipeg's margin held. By then, K. Connor had twice settled the outcome on the power play in the first period, the kind of early finishing that lets a team steal a game on special teams while bleeding elsewhere.
Winnipeg's transition defense was a weakness (F rating), and their discipline cost them (C-), but three power-play goals erased both concerns. Detroit owned the game. The Jets owned the scoreboard.
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.
Jets steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play
The Red Wings deserved better.
The board read WPG 3, DET 2. The chances read WPG 3.4, DET 5.0.
The Red Wings left 3.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.
C. Perfetti makes it 1–0.
High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 4, DET 2 of 7.
Jets steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play
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 breakdownDeflection from 20 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past J. Gibson. 6s after a WPG block. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: N. Niederreiter, V. Namestnikov, N. Pionk, I. Rosen, V. Björck · against B. Chiarot, A. Copp, M. Appleton, A. Sandin-Pellikka
Backhander from 11 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Gibson. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: A. Lowry, M. Ferraro, D. Samberg, M. Barron, B. Lambert · against B. Chiarot, A. Englund, V. Arvidsson, E. Finnie, M. Brandsegg-Nygård
Snap shot from 25 feet, a 23% chance (a rebound), past J. Gibson. 3s after a WPG shot by J. Morrissey. Win probability moved 9 points.On the ice: N. Niederreiter, V. Namestnikov, D. Samberg, A. Iafallo, N. Pionk · against V. Arvidsson, M. Seider, A. Johansson, E. Finnie, M. Brandsegg-Nygård
Deflection from 3 feet, a 41% chance (off the rush), past S. Skinner. Win probability moved 8 points.On the ice: J. Faulk, M. Appleton, A. Johansson, N. Danielson, M. Brandsegg-Nygård · against M. Scheifele, J. Morrissey, K. Connor, M. Ferraro, C. Perfetti
Wrist shot from 4 feet, a 32% chance (a rebound), past S. Skinner. 3s after a DET miss by M. Brandsegg-Nygård. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: B. Chiarot, A. Copp, V. Arvidsson, L. Raymond, A. Sandin-Pellikka · against N. Niederreiter, V. Namestnikov, D. Samberg, A. Iafallo, N. Pionk
score reads WPG–DET
DET went 0-for-28 from medium danger on 2.72 expected goals — 2.7 left on the table.
WPG finished -0.4 against expected, DET -3.0.
Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-11, DET 0-for-27.
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 →
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
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
Best skater on the ice by our rating: K. Connor (WPG), 20:05 of ice, 2-1, 60% of the expected goals while he was out.
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K. ConnorL | 20:05 | 2-1 | 5 | 1.24 | 60 | 0/0 | 3.30 | 9.85 | A+ |
| C. PerfettiC | 17:12 | 1-2 | 2 | 0.64 | 52 | 0/0 | 2.30 | 8.01 | A+ |
| J. MorrisseyD | 21:33 | 0-2 | 7 | 0.21 | 62 | 0/0 | 2.35 | 6.54 | A+ |
| G. VilardiC | 14:41 | 0-1 | 2 | 0.35 | 59 | 0/1 | 0.95 | 3.87 | B |
| B. LambertC | 10:27 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.12 | 47 | 1/0 | 0.31 | 1.79 | C |
| N. PionkD | 23:53 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.06 | 43 | 1/0 | 0.36 | 0.91 | C |
| M. ScheifeleC | 18:06 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.22 | 49 | 0/0 | 0.16 | 0.52 | C |
| A. IafalloL | 11:44 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.07 | 35 | 0/0 | 0.05 | 0.23 | D |
| T. BauerD | 8:35 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 10 | 2/1 | -0.01 | -0.04 | D |
| I. RosenR | 12:54 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 35 | 0/0 | -0.16 | -0.74 | D |
| V. NamestnikovC | 13:09 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.32 | 45 | 0/2 | -0.20 | -0.89 | D |
| N. NiederreiterR | 11:15 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 32 | 0/0 | -0.21 | -1.12 | D |
| V. BjörckC | 13:21 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.06 | 26 | 0/0 | -0.25 | -1.11 | D |
| D. SambergD | 19:50 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 35 | 0/0 | -0.29 | -0.89 | F |
| A. LowryC | 15:17 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 27 | 0/0 | -0.39 | -1.51 | F |
| D. DeMeloD | 20:51 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.03 | 35 | 0/2 | -0.72 | -2.06 | F |
| M. BarronC | 17:46 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.11 | 16 | 0/0 | -0.70 | -2.37 | F |
| M. FerraroD | 20:17 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 11 | 0/0 | -0.89 | -2.62 | F |
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M. Brandsegg-NygårdR | 19:33 | 0-1 | 6 | 1.32 | 70 | 0/0 | 2.18 | 6.70 | A |
| A. DeBrincatR | 23:16 | 0-1 | 4 | 0.62 | 62 | 1/0 | 1.60 | 4.13 | A |
| V. ArvidssonL | 21:24 | 1-0 | 3 | 0.58 | 62 | 0/1 | 1.50 | 4.20 | A |
| E. FinnieC | 16:56 | 1-0 | 2 | 0.44 | 65 | 0/0 | 1.37 | 4.84 | A |
| M. SeiderD | 25:41 | 0-1 | 3 | 0.37 | 56 | 0/0 | 1.25 | 2.93 | A |
| A. CoppC | 23:44 | 0-1 | 1 | 0.33 | 57 | 0/0 | 1.22 | 3.09 | B |
| A. Sandin-PellikkaD | 15:37 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.14 | 70 | 1/0 | 0.94 | 3.62 | B |
| B. ChiarotD | 17:23 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.23 | 68 | 0/0 | 0.72 | 2.48 | B |
| M. RasmussenC | 16:09 | 0-0 | 4 | 0.32 | 61 | 0/0 | 0.61 | 2.27 | B |
| A. EnglundD | 7:15 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 67 | 1/0 | 0.27 | 2.19 | B |
| J. FaulkD | 19:32 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.21 | 55 | 0/0 | 0.41 | 1.26 | B |
| N. DanielsonC | 8:09 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.14 | 69 | 0/0 | 0.27 | 1.97 | C |
| L. RaymondL | 23:55 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.26 | 62 | 0/1 | 0.42 | 1.05 | C |
| M. AppletonC | 9:23 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 66 | 0/0 | 0.21 | 1.34 | C |
| K. KolesarR | 10:49 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.00 | 62 | 2/2 | 0.12 | 0.67 | C |
| A. JohanssonD | 13:30 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 54 | 0/0 | 0.13 | 0.56 | C |
| A. JohanssonD | 12:37 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.03 | 26 | 1/0 | -0.04 | -0.17 | D |
| J. CompherL | 12:51 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.03 | 39 | 0/1 | -0.14 | -0.64 | D |
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, WPG: H. Fleury, J. St. Ivany, C. Koepke. Scratched, DET: W. Wallinder, C. Mazur, M. Kasper. Referees Gord Dwyer and Corey Syvret; linesmen Ryan Gibbons and Brandon Grillo.
WPG Created 3.42 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.96 xG) and 19 rush shots (2.03 xG).
DET Created 5.02 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 7 high-danger shots (1.74 xG) and 39 rush shots (3.70 xG).
WPG Allowed 5.02 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 7 high-danger shots (1.74 xG) and 39 rush shots (3.70 xG).
DET Allowed 3.42 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.96 xG) and 19 rush shots (2.03 xG).
WPG Rush shots 19–39, rush xG 2.03–3.70 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
DET Rush shots 39–19, rush xG 3.70–2.03 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
WPG 3-for-4 on the power play (75%; league ≈21%) with 0.91 PP xG.
DET 1-for-5 on the power play (20%; league ≈21%) with 1.46 PP xG.
WPG +3.02 goals saved above expected on 35 shots against.
DET +0.42 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.
WPG Took 6 penalties for 15 PIM vs 5 for 13 on the other side.
DET Took 5 penalties for 13 PIM vs 6 for 15 on the other side.
Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral
WPG Finishing -0.42 goals vs xG plus +3.02 GSAx of save luck = +2.60 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
DET Finishing -3.02 goals vs xG plus +0.42 GSAx of save luck = -2.60 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
S. Skinner stopped 33 of 35 (0.943) — +3.02 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.
Gave up 39 rush shots worth 3.70 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
Scored 2 on 5.02 xG — -3.02 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.
1 goals on 39 rush shots worth 3.70 xG.
3-for-4 on the power play (75%) on 0.91 PP xG.
The Jets took it 3-2 with only 41% of expected goals (3.42–5.02).
Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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.
Detroit has the edge, but only just. The model's projected score is Detroit 3.4, Winnipeg 3.1, and it treats this as about as close to a pick'em as you will find.
Detroit's win probability is 54%. Winnipeg's is 46%. A split that narrow means margins decide the game, so the details matter more than the headline.
Detroit's clearest edge is territory. The Red Wings take 54.6% of the shot attempts at five-on-five, so expect the play to tilt toward their end of the ice.
The quality-of-chance picture is tighter. On the season, Detroit holds 51.5% of expected goals at five-on-five, a modest edge.
Detroit also has luck on its side. PDO, the sum of a team's shooting and save percentages, sits at 0.971 for the Red Wings. The model reads that as running cold and due for positive regression.
The sharpest contrast is in goal. S. Skinner has saved 1.9 goals more than expected. His sample is 3 games, and his save percentage is 92.0%. J. Gibson has allowed 2.1 goals more than expected. His sample is 4 games, and his save percentage is 86.2%.
The verdict stays the same: a coin flip with a lean toward Detroit. Its territorial edge and its positive regression case are real but small, and margins will decide it.
Data: NHL API, Backcheck expected goals model
DET by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 3.1–3.4 DET; 16% chance it's tied after 60.
DET holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.991 vs 0.971) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.
The Red Wings drive Corsi at 54.6% — expect territorial tilt.
The Red Wings' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.
Win probability splits 54%–46% — margins decide this one.
No completed game on file for this club yet.
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.