Backcheck
Recap · VAN at COL

Avalanche hold off the Canucks

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

By the ModelJul 11, 6:41 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VAN
Vancouver Canucks
1
Home
COL
Colorado Avalanche
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.94Expected goals4.15
59% share for the better side
21Shot attempts (SOG)31
4High-danger chances6
58Corsi (all attempts)63
Score-adjusted: 50% / 50%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Vancouver's shooting collapse explains Colorado's 3–1 win. The Avalanche dominated shot volume (31 attempts, 60%) and held a 4.15–2.94 expected-goals edge, but the Canucks squandered 2.94 xG to score just one goal—a 1.94-goal underperformance that inflated Colorado's margin.

The Avalanche controlled through the rush, converting two of 28 odd-man chances. They attacked the net effectively, generating three rebound opportunities and converting one. Colorado's goaltending was clinical: M. Blackwood stopped 10 of 10 shots with a +1.40 expected-save performance, while S. Wedgewood added 0.54 above expected (10–11). K. Lankinen (VAN) delivered an elite 28-save outing (+1.15), but individual excellence cannot overcome a skaters' collapse.

Nathan MacKinnon provided the decisive moments, finishing with two goals in 22:15. His slap shot from the high slot in the second period proved pivotal. G. Landeskog supplied two assists in 16:47, while D. Toews added one in 21:39.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN0 / 4 · 1.26 xG
COL2 / 6 · 2.19 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN1 / 10 · 1.09 xG
COL1 / 13 · 1.22 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 44 · 0.59 xG
COL0 / 44 · 0.73 xG

VAN went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.26 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
1 G · 2.94 xG · -1.9
COL
3 G · 4.15 xG · -1.1
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. LankinenVAN
+1.1
M. BlackwoodCOL
+1.4
S. WedgewoodCOL
+0.5

VAN finished -1.9 against expected, COL -1.1 — M. Blackwood (COL) saved 1.4 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST0/21
SNAP0/9
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND1/3
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/19
COL
WRIST0/27
SNAP2/9
SLAP1/6
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/12
VAN
COL
Off the rush
1 G on 26 · 2.41 xG
2 G on 28 · 2.32 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.32 xG
1 G on 3 · 0.36 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-21, COL 0-for-27. COL scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
N. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 22:15 TOI · +2
G. Landeskog
#92 · L · COL
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:47 TOI · +2
D. Toews
#7 · D · COL
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:39 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • K. Lankinen (VAN) stopped 1.1 goals above expected.
  • COL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 28 rush chances.
  • COL created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VAN underperformed xG by 1.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • M. Blackwood (COL) saved 2.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • S. Wedgewood (COL) saved 1.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VAN at COL · 9:00 PM ET

The Avalanche should handle the Canucks — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 11, 6:40 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

63%
COL
Model favorite
37%
63%
VAN50COL

COL by 26 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.33.1 COL; 17% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

VAN← edge
edge →COL
44.0%5v5 xG%57.0%
46.0%Corsi%57.0%
2.22xGF / 603.03
2.81xGA / 602.30
1.60Goals for / gm2.63
2.56Goals against / gm1.56
0.974PDO — luck, not skill1.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.974 vs 1.021) says COL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Colorado enters as heavy favorites: the model projects a 2.3–3.1 game, giving the Avalanche 63% win probability.

Form tells the story upfront. Denver sits 9-0-1 in their last 10, while Vancouver deteriorates at -9 goal differential over the same stretch. The underlying structure reinforces the gap: Colorado dominates at 57.0% expected goals and 57.0% Corsi at 5v5, compared to Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. That edge in territorial and shot-quality play typically persists.

PDO introduces a complication. The Avalanche are running 1.021—well above neutral and due for regression. Vancouver sits at 0.974, running cold and due to improve. The regression will narrow the gap, but not enough to overturn Colorado's structural advantage.

On the Vancouver side, Filip Chytil merits close attention: he's generating 1.03 expected goals per 60 with a 15.0% shooting rate, yet has only 3 goals and 0 assists. He owns 1 high-danger goal, suggesting he's leaving production on the board. Drew O'Connor presents differently: 13 goals and 11 assists on a modest 0.85 xG/60, backed by an 11.8% shooting rate and 3 high-danger goals. He's punching above his underlying creation.

For Colorado, Artturi Lehkonen anchors the offense: 18 goals, 22 assists, 1.11 xG/60, 6 high-danger goals, 14.9% shooting rate. Ross Colton mirrors the expected-goal rate at 1.10 xG/60 but operates on a 4.9% shooting rate; his 7 goals and 15 assists suggest either efficiency will regress or his underlying play deserves more respect. He has 1 high-danger goal.

Colorado should control this game. When PDO normalizes, the margin compresses—but never enough to flip the outcome.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters