Backcheck
Recap · CBJ at WPG

Jets pull away from the Blue Jackets

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

By the ModelJul 11, 5:09 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CBJ
Columbus Blue Jackets
2
Home
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.59Expected goals3.17
55% share for the better side
22Shot attempts (SOG)30
3High-danger chances3
54Corsi (all attempts)60
Score-adjusted: 52% / 48%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Winnipeg's 5-2 scoreline misleads. The Jets held 55% of 5-on-5 expected goals (3.17-2.59), insufficient to justify a three-goal margin without scoring luck. E. Merzlikins explained the gap: a 0.833 save percentage on 30 shots, 1.83 goals below expectation.

Winnipeg was clinical off the rush, converting 5 times on 29 chances. Columbus managed 2 goals on 22 rush attempts, an efficient rate that might have tightened the game if Merzlikins had held standard.

Logan Stanley's slap shot from the top of the circles (06:23, P3) provided the turning point in the third period, cementing a lead Winnipeg controlled to the end.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ0 / 3 · 0.73 xG
WPG1 / 3 · 0.65 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ1 / 13 · 1.35 xG
WPG2 / 16 · 1.82 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ1 / 38 · 0.51 xG
WPG2 / 41 · 0.69 xG

WPG went 2-for-41 from low danger on 0.69 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
2 G · 2.59 xG · -0.6
WPG
5 G · 3.17 xG · +1.8
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
E. MerzlikinsCBJ
-1.8
E. ComrieWPG
+0.6

CBJ finished -0.6 against expected, WPG +1.8 — E. Merzlikins (CBJ) allowed 1.8 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
WRIST1/22
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/18
WPG
WRIST2/18
SLAP2/12
TIP IN1/6
SNAP0/5
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/14
CBJ
WPG
Off the rush
2 G on 22 · 2.02 xG
5 G on 29 · 2.46 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.12 xG
0 G on 2 · 0.37 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-22, WPG 2-for-18. WPG scored 5 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 17:41 TOI · +2
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:14 TOI · +1
N. Pionk
#4 · D · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:16 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • E. Merzlikins (CBJ) gave up 1.8 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • WPG scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • WPG was lethal off the rush — 5 goals on 29 rush chances.
  • CBJ was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 22 rush chances.
  • WPG outperformed their expected goals by 1.8 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CBJ at WPG · 8:00 PM ET

Blue Jackets at Jets: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 4:33 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
CBJ
Model favorite
52%
48%
CBJ50WPG

CBJ by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.62.5 WPG; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

CBJ← edge
edge →WPG
52.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
51.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.63xGF / 602.34
2.43xGA / 602.55
2.12Goals for / gm1.90
1.98Goals against / gm2.10
1.003PDO — luck, not skill0.998

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 0.998) says CBJ has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.6–2.5 game favoring Columbus, assigning the Blue Jackets 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Columbus owns the underlying play. At 5v5, they sit at 52.0% xG% with 51.0% Corsi%, against Winnipeg's 48.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%. Both teams carry PDO near even (1.003 for Columbus, 0.998 for Winnipeg). The shot-quality edge belongs to the Jackets, but barely.

Boone Jenner is the driver for Columbus. He's running 0.98 xG/60 with 11G 21A at a 9.6% shooting rate. The catch: only 2 of those goals come from high-danger areas, which suggests his finishing is efficient on cleaner chances. Mathieu Olivier is the variance play—0.89 xG/60, 12G 9A at 13.3% shooting with just 1 HD goal. That shooting percentage is unsustainable and masks thinner underlying production.

Winnipeg's offense splits between volume and finishing. Kyle Connor leads with 25G 30A at 0.83 xG/60 and 13.0% shooting (2 HD goals). Nino Niederreiter operates at lower volume—0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A—but has clustered production in high-danger areas with 3 HD goals. If Niederreiter's net-front efficiency holds, the Jets can keep this close.

The structural constraint: Columbus has generated 0% of its goals from high-danger and rebound situations, suggesting an offensive profile built on clean looks. Conor Garland is their defensive weak link. Winnipeg faces the same profile—0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate—with Colin Miller as the exposed defender.

This is what a genuine coin flip looks like. Columbus should win on process, and the model reflects that with a 52% edge. But Olivier's shooting rate will regress, and Niederreiter's net-front production could sustain the gap. Two equally plausible outcomes, both compatible with the underlying data. The model's call is probably right.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters