Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Fri, Oct 17 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at CHI

Canucks edge the Blackhawks in a shootout

Final / OTFri, Oct 17
VANVancouver Canucks3CHIChicago Blackhawks2
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 3 · CHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:07 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

The Canucks dominated at 5v5 but still needed a shootout—a tension explained by goaltending. Vancouver controlled 59% of expected goals (5.19–3.55), but S. Knight (CHI) saved 3.19 goals above expected, keeping Chicago close despite weaker chances.

The shot volume was nearly even (51% for Chicago, 33–32 on goal), yet the quality gap was stark. Vancouver created 11 high-danger chances to Chicago's 7. Both teams underperformed their xG: Chicago by 1.55 (2 goals on 3.55 xG), Vancouver by 2.19 (3 goals on 5.19 xG).

K. Lankinen (VAN) was equally stingy, stopping 31 of 33 shots with a +1.55 save performance. The Canucks converted on the rush (2 goals on 30 chances), while Chicago created four rebound opportunities but converted only one.

Brock Boeser's wrist shot from the slot in the shootout decided it—a finish that rewarded Vancouver's underlying play, even if the result was closer than the numbers suggested.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Oct 17
VAN
3
CHI
2

Canucks edge the Blackhawks in a shootout

Chances 5.2 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
5.19
CHI
3.55
59% of the chances41%

The board read VAN 3, CHI 2. The chances read VAN 5.2, CHI 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
−2.2
goals above expected
VAN5.19 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI3.55 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 1.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 12:41CHIR. DonatoPP0–1
  2. P1 19:14CHIT. Bertuzzi0–2
  3. P2 06:49VANJ. DeBruskPP1–2
  4. P2 13:42VANM. Sasson2–2
  5. SO 00:00VANB. BoeserPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
58 shots
3
Final
108 shots
CHI
50 shots
2
VAN attackCHI attack
VAN CHI Goal
58
shots · 3 in
50
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANCHI
2 / 11
2.73 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.60 xG
0 / 19
2.01 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.46 xG
0 / 35
0.45 xG
Low
0 / 36
0.49 xG

The Canucks buried 2 of 11 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Knight
+3.2
CHI · 30/32
A
K. Lankinen
+1.6
VAN · 31/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks edge the Blackhawks in a shootout

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 13–15
  1. 12:41CHIR. Donatopower play(A. Burakovsky, A. Levshunov)0–1
  2. 19:14CHIT. Bertuzzi(S. Rinzel)0–2
2ndshots 4–10
  1. 06:49VANJ. DeBruskpower play(C. Garland, Q. Hughes)1–2
  2. 13:42VANM. Sasson(F. Hronek, L. Karlsson)2–2
3rdshots 12–7no goals
    OTshots 3–1no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00VANB. Boeserpower play2–2

      score reads VAN–CHI

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      5.19
      VAN chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −2.2
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      0.995
      VAN puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      53.7%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      5.19Expected goals3.55
      VAN 59% of the chance quality
      32Shots on goal33
      11High-danger chances7
      65All attempts (Corsi)56
      Adjusted for score: VAN 56% · CHI 44%
      Faceoffs · CHI won50%off56%neu68%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      VAN2 / 11 · 2.73 xG
      CHI1 / 7 · 1.60 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      VAN0 / 19 · 2.01 xG
      CHI1 / 13 · 1.46 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      VAN0 / 35 · 0.45 xG
      CHI0 / 36 · 0.49 xG

      VAN went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.01 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      VAN
      3 G · 5.19 xG · -2.2
      CHI
      2 G · 3.55 xG · -1.6
      0123456

      VAN finished -2.2 against expected, CHI -1.6.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      VAN
      WRIST2/37
      BACKHAND0/8
      SNAP0/4
      TIP IN0/2
      SLAP0/3
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      OTHER0/11
      CHI
      WRIST1/26
      BACKHAND0/4
      SNAP0/5
      TIP IN1/6
      SLAP0/4
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      OTHER0/10
      VAN
      CHI
      Off the rush
      2 G on 30
      3.27 xG
      1 G on 23
      2.05 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 10
      1.51 xG
      1 G on 4
      0.62 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 2-for-37, CHI 1-for-26. VAN 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
      K. Lankinen
      VAN · 31/33 · .939
      +1.6
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/71.6+0.6
      Medium1/131.5+0.5
      Low0/360.5+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

      S. Knight
      CHI · 30/32 · .938
      +3.2
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger2/112.7+0.7
      Medium0/192.0+2.0
      Low0/350.5+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

      108 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      VAN
      58 shots
      3
      Final
      108 shots
      CHI
      50 shots
      2
      VAN attackCHI attack
      VAN CHI Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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
      Q. Hughes
      #43 · D · VAN
      0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 30:08 on ice · -1
      C. Garland
      #8 · R · VAN
      0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 23:19 on ice
      F. Hronek
      #17 · D · VAN
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:31 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Fri, Oct 17
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:56 PMEdited 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 can't decide, and it shouldn't have to. Vancouver and Chicago project to an identical 2.6-goal outcome, with the Blackhawks priced at dead-even 50% to win—as close to a pick'em as sportsbooks offer.

      On the underlying numbers, both teams look remarkably similar. Vancouver holds a 44.0% expected goals share at even strength to Chicago's 42.0%, but neither edge is meaningful. Their even-strength Corsi percentages are identical at 46.0%, suggesting the possession-level play is genuinely matched.

      The divergence is in execution variance. Vancouver's PDO sits at 0.974, meaning the team is getting unlucky on both ends—scoring fewer goals per shot taken than expected, and giving up more. Chicago, meanwhile, is running hot at 0.996 PDO, slightly favoring the shot taker. That Vancouver number is running cold and overdue for positive regression; Chicago's is nearly neutral.

      Where the Canucks show bite is through two wings generating elite shot quality. Filip Chytil is running 1.03 xG/60 with 3 goals, 0 assists, 1 hard-chance goal, and a 15.0% shooting percentage. Linus Karlsson carries similar dominance at 0.95 xG/60, with 13 goals, 16 assists, 2 hard-chance goals, and a 14.1% shooting rate.

      Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi, whose 20 goals, 15 assists, 7 hard-chance goals, and 0.85 xG/60 mark him as a lethal finisher—his 18.0% shooting percentage confirms it. Connor Bedard provides a different engine: 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals, 27 assists, and 5 hard-chance goals make him a playmaker first, scorer second, reflected in his 11.8% shooting percentage.

      Vancouver's defensive weak link is Victor Mancini; Chicago's is Anton Frondell. If either team can exploit those gaps, it flips the model.

      • Vancouver's PDO is running well below neutral and primed for positive regression.
      • Chytil and Karlsson are generating elite shot quality for the Canucks.
      • Bertuzzi and Bedard provide Chicago with different scoring pathways—volume and accuracy versus playmaking.
      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      CHI 51%
      50%
      CHI
      Model favorite
      50%
      50%
      VAN50CHI

      CHI by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VAN 2.6–2.6 CHI; 18% 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
      VAN← edge
      edge →CHI
      44.0%42.0%
      46.0%46.0%
      2.222.17
      2.812.94
      1.601.84
      2.562.41
      0.9740.996

      The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.974 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · No games yet
      VAN
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      CHI
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      0.974
      VAN PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.996
      CHI PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Regression watch
      • VAN PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • VAN PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Computed danger · scouting

      Players to watch

      NHL stats API · our xG
      VAN
      Filip Chytil3G 0A
      1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
      Linus Karlsson13G 16A
      0.95 xG/60 · 2 HD · 14.1% 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