Backcheck
Recap · CHI at WPG

Jets edge the Blackhawks in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 12, 5:22 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CHI
Chicago Blackhawks
2
Home
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.51Expected goals3.42
58% share for the better side
19Shot attempts (SOG)32
5High-danger chances5
42Corsi (all attempts)60
Score-adjusted: 41% / 59%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Jets beat the Blackhawks 3–2 in overtime. Both teams had gone 0-for-5 on high-danger chances. Victory came from elsewhere: the Jets held 63 percent of shot attempts (32–19) and 58 percent of expected goals (3.42–2.51), and were more efficient on the rush—three goals on 23 chances to two for the Blackhawks. Mark Scheifele's wrist shot from the high slot, at 2:06 of overtime, ended it.

S. Knight stopped 29 of 32 for the Blackhawks (0.906 SV%). C. Hellebuyck stopped 17 of 19 for the Jets (0.895 SV%, +0.51 vs. expected). With both teams scoreless on high-danger chances, rush efficiency—not goaltending—determined the outcome.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI0 / 5 · 1.17 xG
WPG0 / 5 · 1.39 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI1 / 8 · 0.92 xG
WPG3 / 14 · 1.43 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI1 / 29 · 0.42 xG
WPG0 / 41 · 0.60 xG

WPG went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.43 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
2 G · 2.51 xG · -0.5
WPG
3 G · 3.42 xG · -0.4
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
S. KnightCHI
+0.4
C. HellebuyckWPG
+0.5

CHI finished -0.5 against expected, WPG -0.4 — C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 0.5 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
WRIST2/18
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/11
WPG
WRIST3/25
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/18
CHI
WPG
Off the rush
2 G on 23 · 2.15 xG
3 G on 23 · 1.45 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.22 xG
0 G on 5 · 1.32 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-18, WPG 3-for-25. WPG scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
1 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 23:30 TOI · +3
D. Samberg
#54 · D · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:14 TOI · +2
C. Bedard
#98 · C · CHI
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 19:19 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • WPG couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • CHI couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • WPG was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • CHI was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • WPG created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • S. Knight was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
  • C. Hellebuyck was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CHI at WPG · 8:00 PM ET

The Jets are the model's lean over the Blackhawks on the underlying numbers

By the ModelJul 12, 5:30 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

57%
WPG
Model favorite
43%
57%
CHI50WPG

WPG by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.42.8 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

CHI← edge
edge →WPG
42.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
46.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.17xGF / 602.34
2.94xGA / 602.55
1.84Goals for / gm1.90
2.41Goals against / gm2.10
0.996PDO — luck, not skill0.998

WPG holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.996 vs 0.998) says WPG has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.4–2.8 goal game with Winnipeg at 57% win probability. That lean reflects a clear structural advantage: the Jets generate more dangerous chances and maintain a marginal edge in conversion.

Winnipeg's 48.0% expected goals share outpaces Chicago's 42.0%. The deficit extends to total shots: the Jets hold 49.0% Corsi versus the Blackhawks' 46.0%. Neither team benefits from outlier luck—Chicago's 0.996 PDO and Winnipeg's 0.998 hover near neutral—so these gaps represent real differences in play.

Recent form complicates the picture. The Jets have posted 3-3-4 over their last 10, keeping pace on points, yet both teams trail their expected output. Winnipeg is -12 on goal differential over that span; Chicago is -13. That narrow gap is instructive: both squads are generating chances without finishing them consistently, and the underlying play, not recent results, should drive predictive weight.

Chicago's offensive threat concentrates in two players. Tyler Bertuzzi leads at 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes and shoots 18.0%, producing 20 goals and 15 assists with 7 high-danger goals. Connor Bedard generates 0.82 xG/60 but converts at only 11.8%, though his 17 goals and 27 assists demonstrate that depth scoring extends beyond pure chance creation.

Winnipeg's scoring spreads wider. Kyle Connor has 25 goals and 30 assists on 0.83 xG/60. Nino Niederreiter's 0.87 xG/60 ranks among the league's most dangerous shot creators; his 6 goals and 6 assists against that rate signal a player whose production will likely migrate toward expected output.

Anton Frondell anchors Chicago's defensive weak link; Colin Miller does for Winnipeg. The model's edge for Winnipeg boils down to volume—more chances generated—and marginal efficiency, both reinforced by underlying metrics favoring sustained patterns over variance.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

CHI
Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
Connor Bedard17G 27A
0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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