Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
Breakdown · WPG at DET

Jets steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Jets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.42–5.02 and won anyway.

WPG 3 · DET 2
◆ By the ModelOct 4, 3:41 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

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.

The goals

  • WPG 1–0, 13:04 of the first on the power play. C. Perfetti, deflection from 20 feet, a 6% chance by the model, past J. Gibson. Assists: K. Connor, J. Morrissey. 6 seconds after a WPG blocked shot by M. Rasmussen. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • WPG 2–0, 14:36 of the first on the power play. K. Connor, backhander from 11 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Gibson. Assists: G. Vilardi, C. Perfetti. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • WPG 3–0, 05:41 of the second on the power play. K. Connor, snap shot from 25 feet, a 23% chance by the model (a rebound), past J. Gibson. Assists: J. Morrissey, C. Perfetti. 3 seconds after a WPG shot by J. Morrissey. Win probability moved 9 points.
  • DET 3–1, 16:52 of the second on the power play. V. Arvidsson, deflection from 3 feet, a 41% chance by the model (off the rush), past S. Skinner. Assists: A. Copp, M. Seider. Win probability moved 8 points.
  • DET 3–2, 04:56 of the third. E. Finnie, wrist shot from 4 feet, a 32% chance by the model (a rebound), past S. Skinner. Assists: M. Brandsegg-Nygård, A. DeBrincat. 3 seconds after a DET missed shot by M. Brandsegg-Nygård. 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 4
WPG
3
DET
2

Jets steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

Chances 3.4 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
3.42
DET
5.02
41% of the chances59%

The board read WPG 3, DET 2. The chances read WPG 3.4, DET 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
−0.4
goals above expected
WPG3.42 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
DET5.02 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings left 3.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+17
win-probability points
46% → 63% for WPG
DET 100%the game, start to finish
WPG 100%P1 · P2 · P3
WPGP1 13:04 · PP

C. Perfetti makes it 1–0.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 13:04WPGC. PerfettiPP6%1–0
  2. P1 14:36WPGK. ConnorPP14%2–0
  3. P2 05:41WPGK. ConnorPP23%3–0
  4. P2 16:52DETV. ArvidssonPP41%3–1
  5. P3 04:56DETE. Finnie32%3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
41 shots
3
Final
99 shots
DET
58 shots
2
WPG attackDET attack
WPG DET Goal
41
shots · 3 in
58
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGDET
1 / 4
0.96 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.74 xG
2 / 19
2.02 xG
Medium
0 / 28
2.72 xG
0 / 29
0.45 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.56 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 4, DET 2 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Skinner
+3.0
WPG · 33/35 · 60:00
Best save · a 23% chance, snap from 18 ft · P2 03:06
B
J. Gibson
+0.4
DET · 24/27 · 57:11
Best save · a 32% chance, backhand from 6 ft · P2 01:32
Best skater on the ice
A+
WPG
K. Connor
L · impact 3.30
20:05
Ice time
2–1
G – A
1.24
Own xG
60%
xG share
Impact · top 4
K. Connor3.3A+
C. Perfetti2.3A+
J. Morrissey2.3A+
M. Brandsegg-Nygård2.2A
Report card
WPGDET
OffenseB+A+
DefenseFD
TransitionFA+
Special teamsA+B-
GoaltendingA+C+
DisciplineC-B-
LuckAF
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why WPG won
  1. 01S. Skinner stole it
  2. 02Won against the run of play
  3. 03Power play cashed in
Why DET lost
  1. 01Cold finishing night
  2. 02Rush defense leaked all night
  3. 03Deserved a better fate
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

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 breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 11–13
  1. 13:04WPGC. Perfettipower play(K. Connor, J. Morrissey)1–0

    Deflection 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

  2. 14:36WPGK. Connorpower play(G. Vilardi, C. Perfetti)2–0

    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

2ndshots 9–13
  1. 05:41WPGK. Connorpower play(J. Morrissey, C. Perfetti)3–0

    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

  2. 16:52DETV. Arvidssonpower play(A. Copp, M. Seider)3–1

    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

3rdshots 7–9
  1. 04:56DETE. Finnie(M. Brandsegg-Nygård, A. DeBrincat)3–2

    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

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.42
WPG chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.4
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.032
WPG puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
40.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.42Expected goals5.02
DET 59% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal35
4High-danger chances7
52All attempts (Corsi)77
Adjusted for score: WPG 36% · DET 64%
Faceoffs · DET won65%off47%neu64%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG1 / 4 · 0.96 xG
DET2 / 7 · 1.74 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG2 / 19 · 2.02 xG
DET0 / 28 · 2.72 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 29 · 0.45 xG
DET0 / 42 · 0.56 xG

DET went 0-for-28 from medium danger on 2.72 expected goals — 2.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
3 G · 3.42 xG · -0.4
DET
2 G · 5.02 xG · -3.0
0123456

WPG finished -0.4 against expected, DET -3.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
SNAP1/11
WRIST0/9
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND1/9
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/11
DET
SNAP0/27
WRIST1/10
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/8
DEFLECTED1/2
OTHER0/19
WPG
DET
Off the rush
1 G on 19
2.03 xG
1 G on 39
3.70 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 5
0.62 xG
1 G on 4
0.64 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-11, DET 0-for-27.

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
S. Skinner
WPG · 33/35 · .943
started · 60:00 · win
+3.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
Attempts faced
58
Avg chance faced
8.7%
Stopped vs expected
0.966 vs 0.913
Rebounds allowed
4 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.7-0.3
Medium0/282.7+2.7
Low0/230.6+0.6
Shorthanded1/191.8+0.8
Tips & deflections1/101.0+0.0
The save
23% chance stopped, a snap from 18 ft · P2 03:06
The one to have back
32% chance went in, a wrist from 4 ft · P3 04:56

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 · 24/27 · .889
started · 57:11 · loss
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
Attempts faced
40
Avg chance faced
8.5%
Stopped vs expected
0.925 vs 0.915
Rebounds allowed
5 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.0-0.0
Medium2/192.0+0.0
Low0/170.4+0.4
Shorthanded3/100.9-2.1
Tips & deflections1/50.3-0.7
The save
32% chance stopped, a backhand from 6 ft · P2 01:32
The one to have back
6% chance went in, a deflected from 20 ft · P1 13:04

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. Connor (WPG), 20:05 of ice, 2-1, 60% of the expected goals while he was out.

WPG18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
K. ConnorL20:052-160A+
C. PerfettiC17:121-252A+
J. MorrisseyD21:330-262A+
G. VilardiC14:410-159B
B. LambertC10:270-047C
N. PionkD23:530-043C
M. ScheifeleC18:060-049C
A. IafalloL11:440-035D
T. BauerD8:350-010D
I. RosenR12:540-035D
V. NamestnikovC13:090-045D
N. NiederreiterR11:150-032D
V. BjörckC13:210-026D
D. SambergD19:500-035F
A. LowryC15:170-027F
D. DeMeloD20:510-035F
M. BarronC17:460-016F
M. FerraroD20:170-011F
DET18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
M. Brandsegg-NygårdR19:330-170A
A. DeBrincatR23:160-162A
V. ArvidssonL21:241-062A
E. FinnieC16:561-065A
M. SeiderD25:410-156A
A. CoppC23:440-157B
A. Sandin-PellikkaD15:370-070B
B. ChiarotD17:230-068B
M. RasmussenC16:090-061B
A. EnglundD7:150-067B
J. FaulkD19:320-055B
N. DanielsonC8:090-069C
L. RaymondL23:550-062C
M. AppletonC9:230-066C
K. KolesarR10:490-062C
A. JohanssonD13:300-054C
A. JohanssonD12:370-026D
J. CompherL12:510-039D

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.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionWPGDET
Offense
▸Basis

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).

B+
87
A+
100
Defense
▸Basis

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).

F
37
D
63
Transition
▸Basis

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).

F
48
A+
100
Special teams
▸Basis

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.

A+
100
B-
80
Goaltending
▸Basis

WPG +3.02 goals saved above expected on 35 shots against.

DET +0.42 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.

A+
100
C+
79
Discipline
▸Basis

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.

C-
70
B-
80
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

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.

A
96
F
54
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHWPG

S. Skinner stole it

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

WARNINGWPG

Rush defense leaked all night

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.

LUCKDET

Cold finishing night

Scored 2 on 5.02 xG — -3.02 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

STRENGTHDET

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 39 rush shots worth 3.70 xG.

STRENGTHWPG

Power play cashed in

3-for-4 on the power play (75%) on 0.91 PP xG.

SURPRISEWPG

Won against the run of play

The Jets took it 3-2 with only 41% of expected goals (3.42–5.02).

99 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
41 shots
3
Final
99 shots
DET
58 shots
2
WPG attackDET attack
WPG DET Goal

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.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 20:05 on ice · -1
C. Perfetti
#91 · C · WPG
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:12 on ice · -1
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 7 SOG · 21:33 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Oct 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 11, 5:31 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 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

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 54%
54%
DET
Model favorite
46%
54%
WPG50DET

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.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
WPG← edge
edge →DET
49.3%51.5%
46.1%54.6%
3.153.33
3.253.14
2.602.00
3.002.80
0.9910.971

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.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 1
WPG
0-0-1
-1 GD · 1d rest
DET
0-1-0
-2 GD · 1d rest
0.991
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
DET PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Red Wings drive Corsi at 54.6%

The Red Wings drive Corsi at 54.6% — expect territorial tilt.

WARNINGDET

Regression watch: Red Wings

The Red Wings' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

TACTICAL

A true toss-up

Win probability splits 54%–46% — margins decide this one.

Where the edges live
  • The Red Wings drive Corsi at 54.6% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Red Wings' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Red Wings drive Corsi at 54.6% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: S. Skinner (+1.9 GSAx in 3 GP, 92.0% SV) vs J. Gibson (-2.1 GSAx in 4 GP, 86.2% SV).
  • The Red Wings' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
WPG
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
1 day rest.867 last start
Backup Clay Stevenson · -0.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

DET
Expected in goal
J. Gibson
1 day rest.950 last start
Backup Daniil Tarasov · +3.8 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.

Keep going

Where to next