Backcheck
Recap · MIN at STL

Wild shut out the Blues, 5-0

The Wild stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.22–3.32 and won anyway.

By the ModelJun 16, 2:12 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
MIN
Minnesota Wild
5
Home
STL
St. Louis Blues
0
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.22Expected goals3.32
60% share for the better side
21Shot attempts (SOG)26
6High-danger chances3
49Corsi (all attempts)61
Score-adjusted: 39% / 61%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

This was a heist. Minnesota prevailed 5–0 despite losing the expected-goals battle to St. Louis 2.22–3.32 — the Blues controlled 60% of the xG and scored nothing.

The disparity came from goaltending and execution. F. Gustavsson (MIN) saved 3.32 goals above expectation, suffocating St. Louis's chances. J. Binnington (STL) gave up 2.78 more than his expected workload justified. In high-danger situations, Minnesota converted ruthlessly: 3 for 6 (50%). St. Louis went 0 for 6 on their high-danger chances despite controlling the play. The Blues also wasted four rebound opportunities. Meanwhile, Minnesota was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 17 chances.

The goaltending chasm sealed it. F. Gustavsson turned 26 shots aside; J. Binnington faced 21 and surrendered 5, well below the workload his defense provided. Marco Rossi's wrist shot from the slot at 7:27 of the first period set the tone. Minnesota's clinical finishing and Gustavsson's athleticism dispatched a team that had controlled the play.

Three Stars

  • #12 M. Boldy — 1G, 2A in 16:54
  • #97 K. Kaprizov — 3A in 16:23
  • #38 R. Hartman — 2G in 17:52
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN3 / 6 · 1.19 xG
STL0 / 3 · 0.84 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN1 / 6 · 0.60 xG
STL0 / 18 · 1.96 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN1 / 37 · 0.43 xG
STL0 / 40 · 0.53 xG

STL went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 1.96 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
5 G · 2.22 xG · +2.8
STL
0 G · 3.32 xG · -3.3
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
F. GustavssonMIN
+3.3
J. BinningtonSTL
-2.8

MIN finished +2.8 against expected, STL -3.3 — F. Gustavsson (MIN) saved 3.3 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
WRIST3/19
SNAP1/4
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/17
STL
WRIST0/22
SNAP0/7
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/18
MIN
STL
Off the rush
2 G on 17 · 1.28 xG
0 G on 26 · 2.26 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2 · 0.32 xG
0 G on 4 · 0.68 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 3-for-19, STL 0-for-22. MIN scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Boldy
#12 · L ·
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:54 TOI · +2
K. Kaprizov
#97 · L ·
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 16:23 TOI · +2
R. Hartman
#38 · R ·
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 17:52 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • MIN stole this one. STL owned 60% of the xG and lost.
  • F. Gustavsson (MIN) stopped 3.3 goals above expected.
  • J. Binnington (STL) gave up 2.8 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • MIN was clinical in the high-danger zone — 3/6 on HD chances (50%).
  • MIN was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 17 rush chances.
  • STL created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • STL underperformed xG by 3.3 — wasted quality chances.
  • MIN outperformed their expected goals by 2.8 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
  • F. Gustavsson (MIN) saved 3.3 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · MIN at STL · 8:00 PM ET

Wild at Blues: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJun 16, 2:11 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
STL
Model favorite
50%
50%
MIN50STL

STL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.52.5 STL; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

MIN← edge
edge →STL
52.0%5v5 xG%49.0%
48.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.55xGF / 602.34
2.40xGA / 602.40
2.04Goals for / gm2.00
1.93Goals against / gm2.12
1.007PDO — luck, not skill1.000

MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.007 vs 1.000) says MIN has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.5-2.5 game with St. Louis at 50% win probability. This is a pick'em.

Minnesota owns the underlying play: 52.0% expected goals share at 5v5 versus St. Louis's 49.0%. Yet possession splits evenly at 48.0% Corsi. Neither side has built separation.

Matt Boldy is Minnesota's offensive engine: 22 goals, 18 assists, five high-danger chances at 13.7% shooting. Hunter Haight (1 goal, 1 assist) has generated 1.23 expected goals per 60 minutes at just 8.3% shooting—a gap that suggests conversion improvement is coming. St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud (15 goals, 22 assists, 2 high-danger) shooting 11.9% and Dylan Holloway (13 goals, 24 assists, 1 high-danger) at 10.8%.

Both teams sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. That alignment can't hold. One or both will regress upward. Minnesota's 1.007 PDO sits above league average; St. Louis's 1.000 is neutral. Defensively, the blueprint for beating each team is clear: exploit Matt Kiersted for Minnesota, probe Jimmy Snuggerud for St. Louis. Either blue-line breakdown could shift a tight game.

Minnesota's underlying advantage should matter—Haight's elite shot generation (1.23 xG/60) paired with Boldy's consistency creates a scoring edge. Snuggerud's 0.86 xG/60 output carries less weight unless St. Louis tightens its defensive structure. With metrics this close and talent distributed across both lineups, the pick'em odds hold.

Three Things to Watch

  • Minnesota owns the underlying play—52.0% 5v5 expected goals versus 49.0%.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

MIN
Hunter Haight1G 1A
1.23 xG/60 · 0 HD · 8.3% sh
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters