Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · STL at DET

Red Wings hold off the Blues

FinalSat, Oct 25

STLSt. Louis Blues4 DETDetroit Red Wings6

The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.44–3.51 and won anyway.

STL 4 · DET 6

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 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

Detroit stole this one. The Red Wings' 6–4 victory masked a 4.44–3.51 expected-goals loss—the Blues held 56% at 5v5 yet finished with half the goals.

The Red Wings overperformed their expected goals by 2.49 runs. That margin reflects either elite finishing or St. Louis' inability to execute when it mattered.

J. Binnington bore the brunt. He stopped 22 of 27 shots but gave up 1.49 more goals than his workload suggested—a shortfall that defines the game. J. Gibson, by contrast, posted a 0.862 save percentage and was flawless on high-danger chances, stopping all six.

Detroit was surgical with their chances. They converted 2 of 5 high-danger attempts and scored twice from low-danger areas—finishes that required St. Louis to blink. The Blues managed 0 for 6 on high-danger chances. That conversion rate won't hold.

Simon Edvinsson's wrist shot from a sharp angle (P3, 18:47) epitomized Detroit's clinical edge.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 25

STL

DET

Red Wings hold off the Blues

Chances 4.4 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

4.44

DET

3.51

56% of the chances44%

The board read STL 4, DET 6. The chances read STL 4.4, DET 3.5.

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

Luck check

DET

+2.5

goals above expected

DET3.51 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

STL4.44 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Red Wings scored 2.5 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 07:43STLJ. KyrouPP1–0
P1 12:54STLJ. Neighbours2–0
P2 00:59STLP. BuchnevichPP3–0
P2 03:12STLJ. Neighbours4–0
P2 07:52DETJ. BerggrenPP4–1
P2 18:34DETE. Finnie4–2
P2 19:01DETJ. Compher4–3

+3 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

STL

44 shots

Final

82 shots

DET

38 shots

STL DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLDET

0 / 6

1.56 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.60 xG

3 / 21

2.47 xG

Medium

2 / 13

1.59 xG

1 / 37

0.42 xG

Low

2 / 39

0.31 xG

The Blues went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

J. Gibson

+0.4

DET · 25/29

D-

J. Binnington

−1.5

STL · 22/27

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings hold off the Blues

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 13–4

07:43STLJ. Kyroupower play(C. Fowler, J. Snuggerud)1–0
12:54STLJ. Neighbours(J. Faulk, R. Thomas)2–0

2ndshots 8–15

00:59STLP. Buchnevichpower play(D. Holloway, J. Faulk)3–0
03:12STLJ. Neighbours(R. Thomas, J. Snuggerud)4–0
07:52DETJ. Berggrenpower play(A. Copp, A. Sandin-Pellikka)4–1
18:34DETE. Finnie4–2
19:01DETJ. Compher(T. Hamonic, A. Copp)4–3

3rdshots 8–9

10:01DETA. DeBrincat4–4
10:48DETS. Edvinsson(J. Compher, J. Berggren)4–5
18:47DETS. Edvinssonempty net4–6

score reads STL–DET

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.51

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.043

DET puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

47.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.44Expected goals3.51

STL 56% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal28

6High-danger chances5

64All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: STL 49% · DET 51%

Faceoffs · DET won35%off54%neu60%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL0 / 6 · 1.56 xG

DET2 / 5 · 1.60 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL3 / 21 · 2.47 xG

DET2 / 13 · 1.59 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL1 / 37 · 0.42 xG

DET2 / 39 · 0.31 xG

DET went 2-for-39 from low danger on 0.31 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

4 G · 4.44 xG · -0.4

DET

6 G · 3.51 xG · +2.5

01234567

STL finished -0.4 against expected, DET +2.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

WRIST1/14

SNAP1/9

SLAP0/9

TIP IN2/5

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/4

OTHER0/20

DET

WRIST2/23

SNAP3/9

SLAP0/2

TIP IN1/1

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/19

STL

DET

Off the rush

4 G on 29

3.21 xG

4 G on 27

2.54 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

1.01 xG

0 G on 2

0.19 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-14, DET 2-for-23. STL scored 4 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 · 22/27 · .815

-1.5

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.6-0.4

Medium2/131.6-0.4

Low2/390.3-1.7

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

J. Gibson

DET · 25/29 · .862

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.6+1.6

Medium3/212.5-0.5

Low1/370.4-0.6

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

44 shots

Final

82 shots

DET

38 shots

STL DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

J. Faulk

#72 · D · STL

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:55 on ice

S. Edvinsson

#77 · D · DET

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 20:17 on ice · +1

J. Compher

#37 · L · DET

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:16 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 25

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:05 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 Red Wings enter as marginal favorites, with Detroit projected to win 52% of simulations in what the model calls a 2.4–2.5 goal game. That's as close to a pick'em as evenly matched teams get.

Both teams occupy nearly identical territory at 5v5. St. Louis and Detroit carry identical xG% (49.0%), and their Corsi% separates by a single point—Detroit's 49.0% to St. Louis's 48.0%. Detroit's PDO sits at 0.985, suggesting minor regression from the average; St. Louis runs at 1.000, meaning goal luck has been exactly neutral. The convergence across every underlying metric explains the tightness.

St. Louis leans on Jimmy Snuggerud, who generates 0.86 expected goals per 60 minutes and has scored 15 goals with 22 assists while converting at 11.9%—a high-efficiency clip that suggests skill rather than variance. Dylan Holloway operates at a similar level: 0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 24 assists, and a 10.8% shooting percentage. Both forwards are finishing at rates well above league average, which means St. Louis's offensive production may be sustainable rather than lucky.

Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat, who leads the offensive charge at 0.88 xG/60 with 17 goals and 28 assists on a 9.0% shooting rate. Marco Kasper provides secondary depth at 0.81 xG/60, though his offensive output (7 goals, 8 assists) lags both his teammate and St. Louis's top forwards in both volume and efficiency.

Neither team has cashed in on high-danger opportunities at abnormal rates—both sit at 0% for high-danger goals and 0% for rebound goals—a sign that variance hasn't yet distorted either's record.

The one variable: J. Binnington faces the back end of a back-to-back. Detroit will confront either a fatigued starter or a backup, depending on St. Louis's call. Binnington on back-to-backs often shows wear in the second period. That slight edge barely tips what the model rightly calls a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 52%

52%

DET

Model favorite

48%

52%

STL50DET

DET by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.4–2.5 DET; 19% 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 →DET

49.0%49.0%

48.0%49.0%

2.342.38

2.402.50

2.001.73

2.122.07

1.0000.985

DET holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.985) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

STL

5-4-1

+1 GD · 1d rest

DET

7-3-0

+2 GD · 2d rest

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

back-to-back.833 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

DET

Expected in goal

C. Talbot

2 days rest.767 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page