Minnesota is one of the most interesting but least talked about potential culprits when it comes to rink bias.

I think there's plausible reason to believe that shot closeness is being underrated at both ends of the ice at the Xcel Energy centre

For example: Here's a cumulative chart of home vs. away expected goals and actual goals for from 2008-2019.

They score more at home (makes sense), but their xGF is actually worse at home than it is on the road. Their xGF and GF line up pretty close on the road.

This also happens defensively. The Wild are a better team at home in terms of goals against (they're just generally better at home). But their expected goals against is much much much lower at home than on the road.

With no rink bias, the conclusion would be:

- The Wild are better at scoring and preventing goals at home
- The Wild are MUCH better at preventing expected goals against at home
- The Wild are much WORSE at generating expected goals for at home

Hmm.

This is the kicker for me.

Here's their cumulative goals for above expected. In the past twelve seasons, they've been a barely above-expected finishing team on the road but have scored almost 150 more goals than expected at home.

And on the other end of the ice, cumulative goals saved above expected. Minnesota's goalies have been pretty crummy on the road but apparently unfathomably bad at home?

So on top of the above implications, we now add

- Minnesota's skaters are MUCH better at finishing their scoring chances at home
- Minnesota's goalies are MUCH worse at home

The simpler explanation here than those extremely improbably implications is that the Wild are a better team at home than the road (like most teams) but their scorekeeper has recorded shots against as being further away from the net than they actually are.

Data is from the indispensible @NatStatTrick