Backcheck
Recap · WPG at VAN

Jets hold off the Canucks

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

By the ModelJul 11, 3:35 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
5
Home
VAN
Vancouver Canucks
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.96Expected goals4.47
53% share for the better side
30Shot attempts (SOG)33
6High-danger chances7
59Corsi (all attempts)68
Score-adjusted: 42% / 58%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Winnipeg beat Vancouver 5-3, but the scoreboard overstates the Jets' control. Expected goals told a tighter story: Winnipeg 4.96, Vancouver 4.47, with the Canucks generating 7 high-danger chances to the Jets' 6.

The gap between play and result came down to goaltending. Vancouver underperformed its expected goals by 1.47. T. Demko bore the cost: in relief, he stopped 5 of 8 shots (0.625 SV%), performing 1.63 goals below expectation. Starter K. Lankinen (20 saves, 0.952 SV%) was the inverse—2.59 goals above expected—yet the combined effect still fell short. For Winnipeg, C. Hellebuyck (30/33, +1.47 vs expected) maintained efficiency, allowing the lead to hold despite possession favoring Vancouver.

Both teams scored three rush goals each—Vancouver from 28 chances, Winnipeg from 24. On the power play, each team scored twice. Winnipeg did so on 0.59 expected goals; Vancouver on 0.90, the difference illustrating Winnipeg's finishing precision despite Vancouver's strategic advantage.

Alex Iafallo's wrist shot from the slot (third period, 19:12) proved pivotal. Vancouver chased with 8 rebound chances created but converted none—an offensive drought that crystallized the underlying deficit.

Q. Hughes led with 3 assists, J. Morrissey contributed 1 goal and 2 assists, and E. Pettersson added 2 assists—playmakers in a game far closer than the 5-3 final suggested.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG2 / 6 · 2.86 xG
VAN2 / 7 · 1.54 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG2 / 13 · 1.55 xG
VAN1 / 18 · 2.07 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG1 / 40 · 0.56 xG
VAN0 / 43 · 0.86 xG

VAN went 1-for-18 from medium danger on 2.07 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
5 G · 4.96 xG · +0.0
VAN
3 G · 4.47 xG · -1.5
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. HellebuyckWPG
+1.5
K. LankinenVAN
+2.6
T. DemkoVAN
-1.6

WPG finished +0.0 against expected, VAN -1.5 — K. Lankinen (VAN) saved 2.6 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
WRIST1/23
TIP IN0/6
SNAP0/6
SLAP1/3
BACKHAND1/4
DEFLECTED2/2
POKE0/1
OTHER0/14
VAN
WRIST2/27
TIP IN0/8
SNAP1/5
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/18
WPG
VAN
Off the rush
3 G on 24 · 2.59 xG
3 G on 28 · 2.75 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2 · 0.26 xG
0 G on 8 · 0.89 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-23, VAN 2-for-27. WPG scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · VAN
0 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 28:17 TOI
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:23 TOI · +1
E. Pettersson
#40 · C · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:23 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) stopped 1.5 goals above expected.
  • T. Demko (VAN) gave up 1.6 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • VAN was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 28 rush chances.
  • WPG was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 24 rush chances.
  • VAN created 8 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • K. Lankinen (VAN) saved 4.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • T. Demko (VAN) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • VAN power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 10 PP shots (0.90 xG).
  • WPG power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 10 PP shots (0.59 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · WPG at VAN · 10:00 PM ET

Jets at Canucks: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 3:34 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
WPG
Model favorite
51%
49%
WPG50VAN

WPG by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score WPG 2.62.5 VAN; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

WPG← edge
edge →VAN
48.0%5v5 xG%44.0%
49.0%Corsi%46.0%
2.34xGF / 602.22
2.55xGA / 602.81
1.90Goals for / gm1.60
2.10Goals against / gm2.56
0.998PDO — luck, not skill0.974

WPG holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 0.974) says WPG has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.6–2.5 game favoring Winnipeg with the Jets at 51% win probability—about as close to a toss-up as you'll find. The underlying play supports it.

Winnipeg owns the five-on-five possession battle, posting 48.0% expected goals and 49.0% Corsi compared to Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. The edge is real but not vast. What's closer still is the goaltending setup: both K. Lankinen and E. Comrie face back-to-back starts, so expect either a backup appearance or a starter running on fumes.

Vancouver's salvation is regression. The Canucks are running a 0.974 PDO—cold as it gets—while sitting minus-7 in goal differential over their last 10. Luck normalizes. With Winnipeg's PDO at 0.998, the Canucks have room to catch up in close play.

The Jets' edge rests on two forwards. Nino Niederreiter carries 0.87 xG/60 with 6 goals, 6 assists, and an 8.6% shooting rate despite 3 high-danger chances. Kyle Connor complements him with 0.83 xG/60, 25 goals, 30 assists, and a 13.0% shooting rate on just 2 high-danger goals—an outlier in his favor. Vancouver counters with Filip Chytil, who's crushing volume at 1.03 xG/60 but has only 3 goals and no assists, a 15.0% shooting rate catching up slowly on 1 high-danger chance. Drew O'Connor offers deeper lineup production at 0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11 assists, 11.8% shooting, and 3 high-danger goals.

Winnipeg's structural weak point is Colin Miller on the back line. Vancouver's is Victor Mancini.

The team that executes in transition wins this. Vancouver has to make Niederreiter and Connor uncomfortable in space. Winnipeg has to force the Canucks into low-danger looks. With both goalies worn down, the team controlling the middle period likely controls the game.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters