Backcheck
Recap · VGK at WPG

Golden Knights run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 11, 11:36 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VGK
Vegas Golden Knights
4
Home
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.44Expected goals1.96
64% share for the better side
31Shot attempts (SOG)20
5High-danger chances4
66Corsi (all attempts)37
Score-adjusted: 67% / 33%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Vegas dominated the underlying metrics and won 4–3 in overtime. They outshot Winnipeg 31–20 and controlled 64% of expected goals at 5v5 (3.44 to 1.96) — the kind of possession clinic that scorelines rarely reflect.

Vegas goaltender C. Hart underperformed his xG model by 1.04 goals, a significant miss that should have handed the game to Winnipeg. Winnipeg's C. Hellebuyck was nearly neutral, only 0.56 goals short of expectation despite facing relentless pressure. Vegas executed better on the rush (3 goals on 27 attempts) and was clinical in the high-danger zone (2 on 5 chances, 40%). Winnipeg crashed the net hard but wasted its rebound opportunities — 3 chances generated, 0 converted.

The Jets overperformed their expected goals by 1.04, scoring 3 on just 1.96 xG, yet still lost because Vegas was more efficient elsewhere. Vegas's power play was the deciding factor: 2 goals on 3 shots (0.58 expected goals), a conversion rate that turned a close game into a rout. Tomas Hertl delivered the overtime knockout — a tip-in from the doorstep at 4:47 — but the victory belonged to Vegas's dominance in execution.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VGK2 / 5 · 1.06 xG
WPG0 / 4 · 0.81 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VGK2 / 17 · 1.85 xG
WPG2 / 10 · 0.85 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VGK0 / 44 · 0.53 xG
WPG1 / 23 · 0.30 xG

WPG went 2-for-10 from medium danger on 0.85 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
4 G · 3.44 xG · +0.6
WPG
3 G · 1.96 xG · +1.0
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. HartVGK
-1.0
C. HellebuyckWPG
-0.6

VGK finished +0.6 against expected, WPG +1.0 — C. Hart (VGK) allowed 1.0 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VGK
WRIST1/21
SLAP1/10
SNAP0/5
BACKHAND1/4
TIP IN1/2
DEFLECTED0/2
POKE0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/20
WPG
WRIST2/19
SLAP0/1
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND1/2
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/11
VGK
WPG
Off the rush
3 G on 27 · 2.41 xG
1 G on 11 · 0.83 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4 · 0.46 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.61 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 1-for-21, WPG 2-for-19. VGK scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Marner
#93 · R · VGK
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:13 TOI · -1
G. Vilardi
#13 · C · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:51 TOI · +3
T. Hertl
#48 · C · VGK
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 15:48 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • C. Hart (VGK) gave up 1.0 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • VGK was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/5 on HD chances (40%).
  • VGK was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 27 rush chances.
  • WPG created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VGK created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VGK power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 3 PP shots (0.58 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VGK at WPG · 8:00 PM ET

Golden Knights at Jets: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 11:51 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

54%
VGK
Model favorite
54%
46%
VGK50WPG

VGK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VGK 2.52.3 WPG; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

VGK← edge
edge →WPG
54.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
52.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.52xGF / 602.34
2.11xGA / 602.55
2.12Goals for / gm1.90
2.10Goals against / gm2.10
0.983PDO — luck, not skill0.998

VGK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.983 vs 0.998) says WPG has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects Vegas at 54% win probability—as close to a toss-up as exists. Both teams expect 2.3–2.5 goals per game, making this essentially a coin flip.

Vegas dominates the underlying play. At 5v5, the Golden Knights generate 54.0% expected goals and control 52.0% of shot attempts. Winnipeg sits at 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi, so the advantage belongs to Vegas by process.

The wrinkle: Vegas's PDO is 0.983, running cold and owed positive regression. Winnipeg at 0.998 is neutral, making their recent results more stable. Both teams cratered to -7 goal differential over their last 10 games, so neither carries momentum into this one.

A. Schmid faces back-to-back rest. A tired starter or a bench backup tips the game toward Winnipeg.

Availability matters more than the model here. Brandon Saad is marked inactive for Vegas—a critical loss. Tomas Hertl inherits primary creation duty at 0.88 xG/60, but his 4.3% shooting rate betrays outperformance; regression looms. Kyle Connor leads Winnipeg at 0.83 xG/60 and a startling 13.0% shooting percentage—he's cashing chances well beyond what his underlying metrics predict. Nino Niederreiter operates at 0.87 xG/60 with 3 hard-chance goals, a more sustainable profile of both high-quality looks and elite finishing.

Vegas has the better team when healthy. Saad's absence and Schmid's rest status are enough to make the model right: a genuine toss-up.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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