Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · CHI at FLA

Panthers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 2 · FLA 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 1:40 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

S. Knight nearly stole a game. Florida controlled 61% of 5-on-5 expected goals (3.82–2.40 xG) and 66% of shot attempts (37–19), but won 3–2—a margin that understates their dominance. Goaltending variance explains the gap: Chicago's goalie outperformed his expected outcome by 0.82, while Florida underperformed their expected goals by the same amount. The Panthers should have won more decisively.

High-danger chances split 4–4, meaning neither team gained an edge in the most dangerous areas. The turning point came at 9:40 of the third when Jesper Boqvist deflected home from the doorstep.

Florida's rush conversion lagged behind its volume: 3 goals on 34 chances. Chicago, working fewer rush opportunities (17), converted twice at a higher rate. On paper, that efficiency split shouldn't matter when one team controls 66% of shot attempts, yet it kept the scoreboard tighter than the underlying numbers warrant.

Depth sustained Florida's edge. F. Nazar (1G, 1A in 20:14), T. Bertuzzi (2A in 19:10), and T. Teravainen (1G, 1A in 18:05) got it done, but Knight's outperformance was the only reason this game remained competitive.

Three Stars

  • #91 F. Nazar — 1G, 1A in 20:14
  • #59 T. Bertuzzi — 2A in 19:10
  • #86 T. Teravainen — 1G, 1A in 18:05
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 7
CHI
2
FLA
3

Panthers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.4 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
2.40
FLA
3.82
39% of the chances61%

The board read CHI 2, FLA 3. The chances read CHI 2.4, FLA 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
−0.8
goals above expected
FLA3.82 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.40 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 10:03CHIF. Nazar1–0
  2. P1 11:06FLAA. Greer1–1
  3. P1 14:08FLAC. VerhaeghePP1–2
  4. P2 01:09CHIT. Teravainen2–2
  5. P3 09:40FLAJ. Boqvist2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
32 shots
2
Final
82 shots
FLA
50 shots
3
CHI attackFLA attack
CHI FLA Goal
32
shots · 2 in
50
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIFLA
0 / 4
0.93 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.00 xG
2 / 10
1.02 xG
Medium
3 / 17
1.94 xG
0 / 36
0.44 xG
Low
0 / 48
0.88 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
S. Knight
+0.8
CHI · 34/37
B
S. Bobrovsky
+0.4
FLA · 17/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 3–17
  1. 10:03CHIF. Nazar(T. Bertuzzi, T. Teravainen)1–0
  2. 11:06FLAA. Greer(J. Gadjovich, G. Forsling)1–1
  3. 14:08FLAC. Verhaeghepower play(M. Samoskevich)1–2
2ndshots 11–9
  1. 01:09CHIT. Teravainen(F. Nazar, T. Bertuzzi)2–2
3rdshots 5–11
  1. 09:40FLAJ. Boqvist(M. Samoskevich, E. Rodrigues)2–3

score reads CHI–FLA

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.82
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.004
FLA puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
58.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.40Expected goals3.82
FLA 61% of the chance quality
19Shots on goal37
4High-danger chances4
50All attempts (Corsi)69
Adjusted for score: CHI 43% · FLA 57%
Faceoffs · FLA won67%off65%neu46%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI0 / 4 · 0.93 xG
FLA0 / 4 · 1.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI2 / 10 · 1.02 xG
FLA3 / 17 · 1.94 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI0 / 36 · 0.44 xG
FLA0 / 48 · 0.88 xG

FLA went 3-for-17 from medium danger on 1.94 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
2 G · 2.40 xG · -0.4
FLA
3 G · 3.82 xG · -0.8
012345

CHI finished -0.4 against expected, FLA -0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
WRIST1/5
SNAP1/22
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/0
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/18
FLA
WRIST1/32
SNAP1/3
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/19
CHI
FLA
Off the rush
2 G on 17
1.96 xG
3 G on 34
3.29 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.12 xG
0 G on 2
0.22 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-5, FLA 1-for-32. FLA scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG
Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD
High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi
Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.
Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx
Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO
Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected
S. Knight
CHI · 34/37 · .919
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium3/171.9-1.1
Low0/480.9+0.9

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 17/19 · .895
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium2/101.0-1.0
Low0/360.4+0.4

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CHI
32 shots
2
Final
82 shots
FLA
50 shots
3
CHI attackFLA attack
CHI FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, FLA right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
F. Nazar
#91 · C · —
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:14 on ice · +1
T. Bertuzzi
#59 · L · —
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:10 on ice · +1
T. Teravainen
#86 · C · —
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:05 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 7
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft
◆ By the ModelSep 21, 11:54 PMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model projects a CHI 2.9 - 3.5 FLA game with the Panthers at 59% win probability.

Keys to the game

  • Shutdown Assignment: Panthers. Key matchup: Neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 7 HD goals)
  • Shutdown Assignment: Blackhawks. Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)
  • Exploitable minutes: Anton Frondell. Anton Frondell is on ice for 4.31 xGA/60 and 12 high-danger shots against this season.

Season 5v5 Numbers

MetricCHIFLA
xG%43.5%50.6%
Corsi%46.0%51.9%
PDO0.9960.989

Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

Where the Edges Live

  • The Panthers own the underlying play — 50.6% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 51.9% — expect territorial tilt.

Players to Watch

CHI

  • Tyler Bertuzzi — 0.85 xG/60, 20G 15A, 7 HD goals, 18.0% shooting
  • Connor Bedard — 0.82 xG/60, 17G 27A, 5 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

FLA

  • Sam Bennett — 0.97 xG/60, 18G 19A, 6 HD goals, 13.1% shooting
  • Brad Marchand — 0.93 xG/60, 17G 9A, 3 HD goals, 19.5% shooting

Key Matchups

CHI

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 7 HD goals)
  • Watch Connor Bedard (17G, 11.8% shooting)

FLA

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)
  • Watch Brad Marchand (17G, 19.5% shooting)

Tactical Notes

  • CHI: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • CHI defensive weak link: Anton Frondell
  • FLA: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • FLA defensive weak link: Brad Marchand

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 59%
59%
FLA
Model favorite
41%
59%
CHI50FLA

FLA by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.9–3.5 FLA; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
CHI← edge
edge →FLA
43.5%50.6%
46.0%51.9%
2.623.22
3.403.14
2.563.00
3.293.34
0.9960.989

FLA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.989) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
CHI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
FLA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.996
CHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALFLA

Shutdown Assignment: Panthers

Key matchup: Neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 7 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 7 HD goals)

TACTICALCHI

Shutdown Assignment: Blackhawks

Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

WARNINGCHI

Exploitable minutes: Anton Frondell

Anton Frondell is on ice for 4.31 xGA/60 and 12 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Anton Frondell's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGFLA

Exploitable minutes: Brad Marchand

Brad Marchand is on ice for 3.24 xGA/60 and 31 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Brad Marchand's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers own the underlying play — 50.6% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 51.9% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers own the underlying play — 50.6% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 51.9% — expect territorial tilt.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next