Breakdown · CHI at STL

Blackhawks run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalWed, Oct 15

CHIChicago Blackhawks8 STLSt. Louis Blues3

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 8 · STL 3

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:48 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

Chicago won 8–3 and overperformed their expected goals by 3.46—a finishing display that transformed an already commanding advantage into a rout.

The underlying advantage was substantial. Chicago controlled 61% of expected goals (4.54–2.92) and out-generated St. Louis 9–3 in high-danger chances. But the real separator was shot quality: Chicago averaged 0.083 expected goals per shot; St. Louis managed 0.053. That efficiency gap made the scoreline inevitable.

St. Louis owned 47% of shot attempts, a reasonable volume share. Their problem was composition. They scored twice from low-danger areas—the type of goal that opposing goaltenders are supposed to deny. Against a team as efficient as Chicago, that discipline gap compounds.

Chicago's rush conversion was particularly lethal: 7 goals on 30 rush chances. A. Soderblom (23/26 saves, 0.885 SV%) provided the goaltending stability Chicago needed.

St. Louis's goaltending collapse explains much of the margin. J. Hofer allowed 3.55 goals above expected, a historic underperformance. J. Binnington (6/7 saves, 0.857 SV%) posted a 3.5 goal save above expected, but he arrived too late to matter.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 15

CHI

STL

Blackhawks run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.5 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

4.54

STL

2.92

61% of the chances39%

The board read CHI 8, STL 3. The chances read CHI 4.5, STL 2.9.

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

Luck check

CHI

+3.5

goals above expected

CHI4.54 expected · 8 scored

Expected

Scored

STL2.92 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blackhawks scored 3.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 03:02CHII. Mikheyev1–0
P1 04:29STLJ. Neighbours1–1
P1 05:23CHIL. Reichel2–1
P1 14:54STLD. Holloway2–2
P2 02:49CHIL. Reichel3–2
P2 04:32CHIF. Nazar4–2
P2 08:52CHIJ. Dickinson5–2

+4 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

43 shots

Final

86 shots

STL

43 shots

CHI STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 8 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHISTL

2 / 9

2.45 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.60 xG

3 / 16

1.63 xG

Medium

1 / 16

1.61 xG

3 / 30

0.47 xG

Low

2 / 36

0.71 xG

The Blues went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

J. Binnington

+3.5

STL · 6/7

A. Soderblom

−0.1

CHI · 23/26

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks run the Blues 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 10–7

03:02CHII. Mikheyev1–0
04:29STLJ. Neighbours(C. Parayko, P. Buchnevich)1–1
05:23CHIL. Reichel(M. Grzelcyk)2–1
14:54STLD. Holloway(J. Kyrou)2–2

2ndshots 11–8

02:49CHIL. Reichel(A. Vlasic, C. Bedard)3–2
04:32CHIF. Nazar(T. Bertuzzi, W. Kaiser)4–2
08:52CHIJ. Dickinson(A. Vlasic)5–2

3rdshots 8–11

01:17CHIR. Donato(L. Crevier, I. Mikheyev)6–2
05:03CHIT. Bertuzzipower play(T. Teravainen, C. Bedard)7–2
11:28STLT. Tucker(J. Neighbours)7–3
12:21CHIR. Greene(L. Reichel, C. Bedard)8–3

score reads CHI–STL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.54

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+3.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.091

CHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.54Expected goals2.92

CHI 61% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal26

9High-danger chances3

55All attempts (Corsi)55

Adjusted for score: CHI 44% · STL 56%

Faceoffs · STL won33%off52%neu42%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI2 / 9 · 2.45 xG

STL0 / 3 · 0.60 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI3 / 16 · 1.63 xG

STL1 / 16 · 1.61 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI3 / 30 · 0.47 xG

STL2 / 36 · 0.71 xG

CHI went 3-for-30 from low danger on 0.47 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

8 G · 4.54 xG · +3.5

STL

3 G · 2.92 xG · +0.1

0123456789

CHI finished +3.5 against expected, STL +0.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

WRIST4/28

TIP IN2/3

SNAP1/5

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/3

POKE1/1

OTHER0/12

STL

WRIST3/21

TIP IN0/8

SNAP0/6

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/2

POKE0/1

OTHER0/12

CHI

STL

Off the rush

7 G on 30

3.00 xG

1 G on 27

2.12 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 5

0.93 xG

1 G on 4

0.48 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 4-for-28, STL 3-for-21. CHI scored 7 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

A. Soderblom

CHI · 23/26 · .885

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium1/161.6+0.6

Low2/360.7-1.3

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

J. Hofer

STL · 15/22 · .682

-2.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/92.5+0.5

Medium3/161.6-1.4

Low3/300.5-2.5

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

J. Binnington

STL · 6/7 · .857

+3.5

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/92.5+0.5

Medium3/161.6-1.4

Low3/300.5-2.5

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

43 shots

Final

86 shots

STL

43 shots

CHI STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

C. Bedard

#98 · C · —

0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 18:57 on ice · +1

L. Reichel

#73 · L · —

2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 13:11 on ice · +2

A. Vlasic

#72 · D · —

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:07 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Oct 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:43 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

St. Louis enters as the sharp's pick: the model projects 57% win probability for the Blues in a game it estimates at CHI 2.8 - 3.3 STL. The edge is structural, not variance — St. Louis owns the play at 5v5, holding 48.7% xG share to Chicago's 43.5%, a gap large enough to carry through a season.

Both teams sit at even PDO (1.000), meaning luck hasn't inflated either's goal total. The shot-share tells the same story: Blues 48.3% Corsi to Hawks 46.0%. This is consistent pressure from a deeper, more efficient roster.

The tactical matchup hinges on containment. St. Louis must neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi, Chicago's most dangerous winger at 20G with an elite 0.85 xG/60 and seven high-danger goals — his 18.0% shooting rate suggests he's both lethal and running hot. Connor Bedard anchors the Hawks' play-driver role at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals and a league-wide assist pace (27A), though his 11.8% shooting is closer to sustainable.

Chicago's counter-pressure should focus on Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15G, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting). Snuggerud's rate edges Bedard's, even if his goal total lags; this is a forward approaching his ceiling. Dylan Holloway rounds out St. Louis's scoring at 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals and 24 assists.

The Hawks' defensive vulnerability lies with Anton Frondell, who carries 4.31 xGA/60 when on the ice and has allowed 12 high-danger shots against this season. That's not a seasonal outlier to ignore — it's a matchup Chicago has to manage, either by sheltering him or accepting where the Blues will hunt.

The model sees this one clearly: St. Louis's sustained play-generation advantage translates to wins. Chicago will need Bedard and Bertuzzi to steal chances and Frondell to tighten up; the Blues, as constructed, shouldn't need perfection.

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 57%

57%

STL

Model favorite

43%

57%

CHI50STL

STL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.8–3.3 STL; 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 →STL

43.5%48.7%

46.0%48.3%

2.622.80

3.402.95

2.562.80

3.293.10

0.9961.000

STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.000) says STL 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

STL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALSTL

Shutdown Assignment: Blues

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

TACTICALCHI

Shutdown Assignment: Blackhawks

Key matchup: Neutralize Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 0.86 xG/60, 2 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.

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.

Where the edges live

The Blues own the underlying play — 48.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.

Things to watch

The Blues own the underlying play — 48.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page