Minnesota won because Oettinger conceded 2.20 goals above average on 29 shots while Wallstedt conceded 1.80 goals below average, a combined four-goal goaltending swing that made a 6–1 final inevitable.
⚡TURNING POINT
Eriksson Ek's power-play goal at 8:13 of the third pushed the deficit to 5–1, eliminating any mathematical path back for Dallas and forcing a coaching decision between damage control and lineup experimentation. At that margin, the game ceased to be competitive and became a data point about Minnesota's readiness.
🏆WHY MIN WON
1
Goaltending: Wallstedt conceded 1.80 goals below average on 28 shots — in a 5-goal game, that margin removed any chance of a Dallas rally.
2
Power Play: Minnesota converted 2/5 (40.0%) compared to Dallas's 1/5 (20.0%), with both Minnesota goals coming at decisive moments that extended or sealed the lead.
3
Physicality and Puck Security: MIN registered 49 hits and only 8 giveaways to Dallas's 14, controlling the game's physical and territorial terms throughout.
📉WHY DAL LOST
1
Goaltending: Oettinger conceded 2.20 goals above average on 29 shots — in a 5-goal deficit, that overage was the structural reason the game collapsed.
2
Puck Management: Dallas committed 14 giveaways to Minnesota's 8, repeatedly surrendering transition opportunities to a team built to punish exactly that.
3
Defensive Zone Coverage: Dallas blocked only 8 shots to Minnesota's 17, leaving Oettinger exposed with insufficient traffic management in front.
Three Stars
Jesper Wallstedt1st
MIN, G
SV% 0.96427/28 saves60:00 TOI
Wallstedt's performance removed the margin for error that would have kept Dallas in the game.
Kirill Kaprizov2nd
MIN, L
1G 2A 3PSOG 2+/- +3
Kaprizov drove play at even strength and added the primary assist on Eriksson Ek's third-period power-play goal that closed the contest.
Mats Zuccarello3rd
MIN, R
0G 3A 3PSOG 1+/- +2
Zuccarello's three assists spanned all three periods and connected Minnesota's top unit across every critical sequence.
