Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater

Breakdown · MTL at CHI

Canadiens run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Oct 11

MTLMontreal Canadiens3 CHIChicago Blackhawks2

The verdict · earned

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

MTL 3 · CHI 2

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:26 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

Montreal's 3-2 win buried a more decisive scoreline beneath the surface: the Canadiens controlled 69% of 5v5 expected goals, 4.45–1.96.

The gap between volume and quality tells the story. Chicago held 44% of shot attempts (22 on goal to Montreal's 28), a roughly balanced battle. But Montreal generated substantially more dangerous looks—0.073 expected goals per shot versus Chicago's 0.045. High-danger chances went 9-2.

S. Knight kept Chicago within reach with a save 1.45 goals above expected. S. Montembeault underperformed his underlying numbers, allowing three when 4.45 xG suggested closer to four.

Chicago was lethal on the rush, scoring twice on 21 chances. Montreal scored twice on 33 rush chances, a lower-efficiency secondary outlet overwhelmed by primary dominance. The power play crystallized Montreal's advantage: 2 goals on 27 shots (2.91 xG), turning zone time into actual scoring.

N. Suzuki recorded three assists in 21:56. T. Teravainen contributed two assists in 20:34. C. Caufield added one goal and one assist in 19:58.

Montreal controlled the game because it didn't just own the puck—it owned it in the right places.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 11

MTL

CHI

Canadiens run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.5 – 2.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

MTL

4.45

CHI

1.96

69% of the chances31%

The board read MTL 3, CHI 2. The chances read MTL 4.5, CHI 2.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

MTL

−1.4

goals above expected

MTL4.45 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI1.96 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

P2 02:45MTLC. CaufieldPP1–0
P2 04:34CHIS. Rinzel1–1
P2 05:45MTLZ. BolducPP2–1
P2 09:15CHIC. BedardPP2–2
P3 19:45MTLK. Guhle3–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

MTL

43 shots

Final

77 shots

CHI

34 shots

MTL CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

MTLCHI

2 / 9

2.20 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.45 xG

0 / 15

1.71 xG

Medium

2 / 9

0.88 xG

1 / 37

0.53 xG

Low

0 / 33

0.63 xG

The Canadiens buried 2 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

B+

S. Knight

+1.4

CHI · 25/28

S. Montembeault

−0.0

MTL · 20/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Canadiens 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 8–6no goals

2ndshots 10–4

02:45MTLC. Caufieldpower play(Z. Bolduc, N. Suzuki)1–0
04:34CHIS. Rinzel(T. Teravainen, F. Nazar)1–1
05:45MTLZ. Bolducpower play(C. Caufield, N. Suzuki)2–1
09:15CHIC. Bedardpower play(F. Nazar, T. Teravainen)2–2

3rdshots 10–12

19:45MTLK. Guhle(N. Suzuki, L. Hutson)3–2

score reads MTL–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.45

MTL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.4

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.004

MTL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

58.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.45Expected goals1.96

MTL 69% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal22

9High-danger chances2

61All attempts (Corsi)44

Adjusted for score: MTL 58% · CHI 42%

Faceoffs · CHI won29%off50%neu41%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

MTL2 / 9 · 2.20 xG

CHI0 / 2 · 0.45 xG

Medium dangermid-range

MTL0 / 15 · 1.71 xG

CHI2 / 9 · 0.88 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

MTL1 / 37 · 0.53 xG

CHI0 / 33 · 0.63 xG

MTL went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.71 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

MTL

3 G · 4.45 xG · -1.4

CHI

2 G · 1.96 xG · +0.0

012345

MTL finished -1.4 against expected, CHI +0.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

MTL

WRIST2/18

SNAP0/7

DEFLECTED0/5

TIP IN0/3

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/5

BAT1/1

OTHER0/18

CHI

WRIST1/22

SNAP0/4

DEFLECTED0/2

TIP IN1/3

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/10

MTL

CHI

Off the rush

2 G on 33

3.40 xG

2 G on 21

1.08 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.65 xG

0 G on 5

0.49 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 2-for-18, CHI 1-for-22. MTL scored 2 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. Montembeault

MTL · 20/22 · .909

-0.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium2/90.9-1.1

Low0/330.6+0.6

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. Knight

CHI · 25/28 · .893

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/92.2+0.2

Medium0/151.7+1.7

Low1/370.5-0.5

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

MTL

43 shots

Final

77 shots

CHI

34 shots

MTL CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, CHI 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

N. Suzuki

#14 · C · —

0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 21:56 on ice · +1

T. Teravainen

#86 · C · —

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:34 on ice · +1

C. Caufield

#13 · R · —

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:58 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 1:10 AMRaw 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 MTL 3.3 - 3.1 CHI game with the Canadiens at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Keys to the game

Shutdown Assignment: Blackhawks. Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)
Shutdown Assignment: Canadiens. Key matchup: Neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 7 HD goals)
Exploitable minutes: Mike Matheson. Mike Matheson is on ice for 2.90 xGA/60 and 78 high-danger shots against this season.

Season 5v5 Numbers

Metric	MTL	CHI
xG%	49.7%	43.5%
Corsi%	48.2%	46.0%
PDO	1.019	0.996

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

Where the Edges Live

The Canadiens own the underlying play — 49.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.

Regression Watch

The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Players to Watch

MTL

Cole Caufield — 0.97 xG/60, 33G 16A, 1 HD goals, 20.0% shooting
Oliver Kapanen — 0.83 xG/60, 19G 12A, 4 HD goals, 17.8% shooting

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

Key Matchups

MTL

Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)
Watch Oliver Kapanen (19G, 17.8% shooting)

CHI

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

Tactical Notes

MTL: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
MTL defensive weak link: Mike Matheson
CHI: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
CHI defensive weak link: Anton Frondell

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MTL 53%

53%

MTL

Model favorite

53%

47%

MTL50CHI

MTL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 3.3–3.1 CHI; 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

MTL← edge

edge →CHI

49.7%43.5%

48.2%46.0%

3.282.62

3.323.40

3.402.56

3.063.29

1.0190.996

MTL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.996) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

MTL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

CHI

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.019

MTL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALCHI

Shutdown Assignment: Blackhawks

Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

TACTICALMTL

Shutdown Assignment: Canadiens

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

WARNINGMTL

Exploitable minutes: Mike Matheson

Mike Matheson is on ice for 2.90 xGA/60 and 78 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Mike Matheson's shifts with the top line.

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.

Where the edges live

The Canadiens own the underlying play — 49.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.

Regression watch

The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Canadiens own the underlying play — 49.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

MTL

Cole Caufield33G 16A

0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh

Oliver Kapanen19G 12A

0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page