Backcheck
Recap · COL at WPG

C. Hellebuyck stands tall as the Jets edge the Avalanche

The Jets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.78–2.56 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 12, 7:04 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
COL
Colorado Avalanche
1
Home
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.78Expected goals2.56
60% share for the better side
29Shot attempts (SOG)19
7High-danger chances3
79Corsi (all attempts)37
Score-adjusted: 73% / 27%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Winnipeg won 3-1 despite being outshot in expected goals 2.56–3.78. Colorado controlled 60% of the chances at 5v5; the Jets stole this one.

C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.78 goals above expected with a 0.966 save percentage, stopping all 7 high-danger chances. M. Blackwood (COL) finished at 0.889, +0.56 above expected—respectable, but the Avalanche wasted their opportunities. Colorado went 0 for 7 on high-danger looks and paid for it.

Winnipeg's edge came from shot quality. The Jets generated 0.069 expected goals per shot versus Colorado's 0.048, meaning every chance they created was crisper. K. Connor (WPG) registered 1 goal and 1 assist in 18:49. The Avalanche crashed the net effectively, creating 7 rebound opportunities, but converted none.

On the cycle, Winnipeg thrived on the rush—2 goals on 17 chances. Cole Perfetti's wrist shot from the point at 19:18 proved the turning point. M. Scheifele (WPG) notched 2 assists in 19:53.

Colorado's issue wasn't volume; it was execution. Underperforming their xG by 2.8 goals across a game won by 2 is brutal. M. Necas (COL) scored 1 goal in 26:48 of play, but that was the Avalanche's only answer.

The shot attempts favored Colorado (29–19 on goal), but Winnipeg's goaltending and efficiency proved decisive. Hellebuyck's 28-save performance—especially his perfect record against high-danger looks—was the difference between a statistical anomaly and a scoreboard lie.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
COL0 / 7 · 1.45 xG
WPG1 / 3 · 1.54 xG
Medium dangermid-range
COL1 / 14 · 1.49 xG
WPG1 / 4 · 0.45 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
COL0 / 58 · 0.84 xG
WPG1 / 30 · 0.56 xG

COL went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.45 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
COL
1 G · 3.78 xG · -2.8
WPG
3 G · 2.56 xG · +0.4
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
M. BlackwoodCOL
+0.6
C. HellebuyckWPG
+2.8

COL finished -2.8 against expected, WPG +0.4 — C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.8 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
COL
WRIST0/30
SNAP1/9
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/3
BAT0/2
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/27
WPG
WRIST3/17
SNAP0/4
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/6
BAT0/0
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/7
COL
WPG
Off the rush
1 G on 26 · 2.07 xG
2 G on 17 · 1.43 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7 · 0.86 xG
0 G on 1 · 0.02 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 0-for-30, WPG 3-for-17. WPG scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:53 TOI · +1
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:49 TOI · +1
M. Necas
#88 · C · COL
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 26:48 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • WPG won despite being outplayed by xG (40%). Goaltending or finishing carried them.
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) stopped 2.8 goals above expected.
  • WPG generated far more dangerous chances — 0.069 xG/shot vs 0.048. Quality over quantity.
  • COL couldn't convert — 0/7 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • WPG was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 17 rush chances.
  • COL created 7 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • COL underperformed xG by 2.8 — wasted quality chances.
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.8 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • C. Hellebuyck was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 7 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · COL at WPG · 4:00 PM ET

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

By the ModelJul 12, 7:18 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

56%
COL
Model favorite
56%
44%
COL50WPG

COL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score COL 2.82.4 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

COL← edge
edge →WPG
57.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
57.0%Corsi%49.0%
3.03xGF / 602.34
2.30xGA / 602.55
2.63Goals for / gm1.90
1.56Goals against / gm2.10
1.021PDO — luck, not skill0.998

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.021 vs 0.998) says COL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.8-2.4 Avalanche victory with 56% win probability. Colorado's advantage rests on two forces: dominant underlying play and unsustainable puck luck.

Colorado controlled territory decisively at 57.0% xG and 57.0% Corsi. Winnipeg's 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi confirm the imbalance—the Jets will spend the evening defending. Over the last 10 games, Colorado's 8-2-0 record reflects this edge, while Winnipeg's -7 goal differential tells what happens when luck runs thin.

The problem: Colorado's 1.021 PDO signals a team converting at unsustainable rates. Winnipeg sits at 0.998, a baseline. When you run that hot, regression looms—especially dangerous when both C. Hellebuyck and S. Wedgewood operate on back-to-back nights. One or both could be replaced by a backup, or they start depleted. That's where Colorado's fortune might crack.

On attack, Artturi Lehkonen drives Colorado's efficiency. His 1.11 xG/60 (18G 22A, 6 HD goals, 14.9% shooting) represents exactly the kind of production Winnipeg's defense must locate and smother. Ross Colton generates nearly identical volumes at 1.10 xG/60 (7G 15A, 1 HD goals, 4.9% shooting), offering secondary scoring that makes him a dangerous secondary target.

Winnipeg's offense operates with less precision. Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting) trails Colorado's elite producers, and Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting) generates fewer chances than his 25 goals might suggest. Winnipeg's offensive load is lighter than you'd hope for an upset.

Defensively, Nazem Kadri represents Colorado's softest point, while Colin Miller carries similar vulnerability for Winnipeg. Neither profiles as a critical liability in isolation, but the underlying story dominates: Colorado dictates tempo and territory, and the Jets lack the offensive profile to overcome it.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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