Backcheck
Recap · VAN at WPG

Jets run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 6:04 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VAN
Vancouver Canucks
2
Home
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.51Expected goals4.05
62% share for the better side
23Shot attempts (SOG)36
4High-danger chances6
39Corsi (all attempts)71
Score-adjusted: 33% / 67%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Winnipeg controlled 62% of 5v5 expected goals (4.05–2.51) and won 3-2 in overtime. The scoreline reflected the dominance, though the Jets underperformed their xG by 1.05 goals. K. Lankinen stopped 1.1 goals above expected—offsetting performances that kept the game closer than the underlying numbers predicted.

The Jets held 61% of shot attempts (36–23) and won high-danger chances 6–4. Lankinen's 0.917 save percentage was the reason Vancouver remained competitive throughout. Winnipeg's volume and quality advantages never became a rout.

The Jets' edge appeared most clearly in rush execution. Winnipeg scored three goals on 31 rush chances while Vancouver managed two on 21. Winnipeg created nine rebound opportunities (none converted); Vancouver three (none converted). The asymmetry showed how much harder Winnipeg pushed inside the blue paint.

Josh Morrissey's slap shot from the top of the circles at 01:49 of overtime decided the game.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN0 / 4 · 0.95 xG
WPG1 / 6 · 1.48 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN2 / 13 · 1.19 xG
WPG1 / 19 · 1.82 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 22 · 0.36 xG
WPG1 / 46 · 0.75 xG

VAN went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.95 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
2 G · 2.51 xG · -0.5
WPG
3 G · 4.05 xG · -1.1
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. LankinenVAN
+1.1
C. HellebuyckWPG
+0.5

VAN finished -0.5 against expected, WPG -1.1 — K. Lankinen (VAN) saved 1.1 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST1/19
SLAP0/2
SNAP1/4
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/5
WPG
WRIST1/24
SLAP1/12
SNAP0/8
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/4
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/17
VAN
WPG
Off the rush
2 G on 21 · 1.40 xG
3 G on 31 · 2.31 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.38 xG
0 G on 9 · 1.18 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 1-for-19, WPG 1-for-24. 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 · 25:07 TOI · +1
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 24:27 TOI · +1
T. Blueger
#53 · C · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:08 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • K. Lankinen (VAN) stopped 1.1 goals above expected.
  • WPG was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 31 rush chances.
  • VAN was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • WPG created 9 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VAN created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VAN at WPG · 7:00 PM ET

The Jets are the model's lean over the Canucks — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 12, 6:01 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
WPG
Model favorite
45%
55%
VAN50WPG

WPG by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.42.7 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

VAN← edge
edge →WPG
44.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
46.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.22xGF / 602.34
2.81xGA / 602.55
1.60Goals for / gm1.90
2.56Goals against / gm2.10
0.974PDO — luck, not skill0.998

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

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a VAN 2.4 - 2.7 WPG game with the Jets favored at 56% win probability. Winnipeg's underlying superiority is real, but Vancouver's luck deficit makes this overvalued on short-money lines.

The Jets are the hotter team: 5-2-3 in their last 10 games while the Canucks sit at -22 goal differential over the same span—a rout that goes deeper than the scoreboard. At 5v5, Winnipeg has dominated the possession battle: 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi versus Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. The difference isn't dramatic, but it's consistent and directional.

Where Winnipeg's edge softens: goaltending and variance. C. Hellebuyck appears on a back-to-back; monitor for a starter rest day or a fatigued matchup. More pressingly, the Canucks are running a 0.974 PDO—ice-cold—while Winnipeg sits at 0.998, nearly league average. Vancouver is due for positive regression, meaning the underlying play won't stay this lopsided on the scoresheet.

Drew O'Connor leads Vancouver's offense, but Filip Chytil is likely out after 33 days. On Winnipeg's side, Kyle Connor and Nino Niederreiter carry the scoring load. Defensively, Victor Mancini is Vancouver's weak link; Colin Miller plays that role for Winnipeg. Winnipeg's real edge is in shot generation and suppression at even strength.

Players to Watch

VAN

  • Drew O'Connor — 0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting
  • Filip Chytil — 1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting (likely out, 33 days)

WPG

  • Kyle Connor — 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting
  • Nino Niederreiter — 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting
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
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