Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater

Breakdown · STL at VAN

Blues pull away from the Canucks

FinalMon, Oct 13

STLSt. Louis Blues5 VANVancouver Canucks2

The verdict · earned

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

STL 5 · VAN 2

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:39 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

St. Louis earned its 5–2 win through superior control—56% of 5v5 expected goals (4.44–3.51) and a commanding 9–4 advantage in high-danger chances. The scoreline, though, overstates the gap. Vancouver's xG of 3.51 suggested a one-goal margin. Goaltending and finishing closed the deal.

J. Binnington stopped 27 of 29 shots (0.931 SV%), 1.51 goals above expected. K. Lankinen allowed 31 of 35 (0.886 SV%), a gap that inflated the deficit. Vancouver underperformed their xG by 1.51 goals, wasting quality chances when conversion mattered most.

The rush told its own story. The Canucks scored twice on 29 rush attempts—efficient, if sparse. St. Louis converted three of 25—a lethal rate on far fewer chances. Vancouver generated six rebound opportunities and converted none, while St. Louis banked one of four. The difference was marginal but decisive.

The turning point came when Jake Neighbours' wrist shot from the top of the circles (Period 3, 17:47) broke the game open.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 13

STL

VAN

Blues pull away from the Canucks

Chances 4.4 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

4.44

VAN

3.51

56% of the chances44%

The board read STL 5, VAN 2. The chances read STL 4.4, VAN 3.5.

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

Luck check

STL

+0.6

goals above expected

STL4.44 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN3.51 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Canucks left 1.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 08:48STLJ. Snuggerud1–0
P2 02:10STLB. Schenn2–0
P2 05:33VANK. Sherwood2–1
P2 08:13STLJ. SnuggerudPP3–1
P2 12:12VANK. SherwoodSH3–2
P2 13:45STLN. Bjugstad4–2
P3 17:47STLJ. NeighboursEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

STL

49 shots

Final

96 shots

VAN

47 shots

STL VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLVAN

3 / 9

2.60 xG

High danger

1 / 4

1.05 xG

2 / 14

1.37 xG

Medium

1 / 16

1.75 xG

0 / 43

0.46 xG

Low

0 / 44

0.71 xG

The Blues buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Binnington

+1.5

STL · 27/29

K. Lankinen

+0.4

VAN · 31/35

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blues pull away from the Canucks

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 12–8

08:48STLJ. Snuggerud(P. Suter, M. Joseph)1–0

2ndshots 18–11

02:10STLB. Schenn(J. Kyrou, P. Broberg)2–0
05:33VANK. Sherwood(A. Räty, A. Bains)2–1
08:13STLJ. Snuggerudpower play(P. Buchnevich, B. Schenn)3–1
12:12VANK. Sherwoodshorthanded3–2
13:45STLN. Bjugstad(N. Walker, A. Texier)4–2

3rdshots 6–10

17:47STLJ. Neighboursempty net5–2

score reads STL–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.44

STL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.044

STL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.8%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.44Expected goals3.51

STL 56% of the chance quality

36Shots on goal29

9High-danger chances4

66All attempts (Corsi)64

Adjusted for score: STL 45% · VAN 55%

Faceoffs · VAN won67%off23%neu60%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL3 / 9 · 2.60 xG

VAN1 / 4 · 1.05 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL2 / 14 · 1.37 xG

VAN1 / 16 · 1.75 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL0 / 43 · 0.46 xG

VAN0 / 44 · 0.71 xG

VAN went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 1.75 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

5 G · 4.44 xG · +0.6

VAN

2 G · 3.51 xG · -1.5

0123456

STL finished +0.6 against expected, VAN -1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

WRIST2/26

SNAP2/11

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/3

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED1/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/17

VAN

WRIST1/25

SNAP0/7

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND1/5

TIP IN0/3

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/17

STL

VAN

Off the rush

3 G on 25

2.63 xG

2 G on 29

2.42 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.92 xG

0 G on 6

0.78 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 2-for-26, VAN 1-for-25. STL 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

J. Binnington

STL · 27/29 · .931

+1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.1+0.1

Medium1/161.8+0.8

Low0/440.7+0.7

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

K. Lankinen

VAN · 31/35 · .886

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/92.6-0.4

Medium2/141.4-0.6

Low0/430.5+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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

49 shots

Final

96 shots

VAN

47 shots

STL VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, VAN 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

B. Schenn

#10 · C · —

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:30 on ice · -1

J. Snuggerud

#21 · R · —

2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 16:12 on ice

K. Sherwood

#44 · L · —

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 15:42 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Oct 13

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:19 AMEdited 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

The model projects a 3.2–3.0 St. Louis win with the Blues at 52% win probability—a pick'em game where neither team has a clear edge.

St. Louis owns the underlying play. At 48.7% expected goals share, the Blues are generating more dangerous chances than Vancouver's 44.0%. The Canucks, meanwhile, are running cold: their 0.974 PDO signals positive regression is coming. If that happens on game night, it could shift a close game.

The decisive matchups: Vancouver's defense must contend with Jimmy Snuggerud, who produces at 0.86 xG/60 and carries 15 goals with 2 high-danger chances. St. Louis must answer Filip Chytil, who drives the Canucks offense at 1.03 xG/60 despite just 3 goals. At 15.0% shooting, Chytil is overdue to regress upward. These assignments will determine the game.

Players to Watch

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goals, 10.8% shooting

VAN

Filip Chytil — 1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting
Drew O'Connor — 0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 53%

53%

STL

Model favorite

53%

47%

STL50VAN

STL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 3.2–3.0 VAN; 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

STL← edge

edge →VAN

48.7%44.0%

48.3%46.9%

2.802.78

2.953.54

2.802.56

3.103.83

1.0000.974

STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.974) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

STL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

VAN

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALVAN

Shutdown Assignment: Canucks

Key matchup: Neutralize Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 0.86 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

TACTICALSTL

Shutdown Assignment: Blues

Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Chytil (3G, 1.03 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

WARNINGSTL

Exploitable minutes: Jimmy Snuggerud

Jimmy Snuggerud is on ice for 2.75 xGA/60 and 44 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Jimmy Snuggerud's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGVAN

Exploitable minutes: Victor Mancini

Victor Mancini is on ice for 3.25 xGA/60 and 15 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Victor Mancini's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Blues own the underlying play — 48.7% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Blues own the underlying play — 48.7% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A

0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh

Dylan Holloway13G 24A

0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page