Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · DET at STL

Red Wings run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Oct 28

DETDetroit Red Wings5 STLSt. Louis Blues2

The verdict · earned

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

DET 5 · STL 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:34 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 dominated shot volume but lost 5–2 because it only generated volume, not threats. The Red Wings controlled 61% of expected goals (3.60–2.33), and high-danger chances split 4–3 in their favor — the Blues' 22 shots on goal meant little.

Detroit's shot-generation efficiency exposed the gap. At 0.073 xG per shot, the Red Wings got twice as dangerous per attempt as St. Louis's 0.046. The Blues held 52% of shot attempts (22–20 on goal) but fired from low-value areas.

Goaltending mattered. J. Gibson stopped 20 of 22 (0.909 SV%), while J. Binnington surrendered 4 on 19 shots (0.789 SV%). The Red Wings overperformed their xG by 1.40 goals. Both teams thrived off the rush — St. Louis scored 2 on 22 chances, Detroit scored 3 on 24 — but Detroit converted higher-leverage looks. St. Louis crashed the net effectively, creating 3 rebound chances and converting zero.

D. Larkin scored 2G, 1A in 18:27. His wrist shot from the point at 18:53 was the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 28

DET

STL

Red Wings run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.6 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

DET

3.60

STL

2.33

61% of the chances39%

The board read DET 5, STL 2. The chances read DET 3.6, STL 2.3.

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

Luck check

DET

+1.4

goals above expected

DET3.60 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

STL2.33 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

P1 00:47STLB. Schenn0–1
P1 12:01DETB. Chiarot1–1
P1 19:24DETA. DeBrincatPP2–1
P2 11:14DETD. Larkin3–1
P2 12:56DETE. Soderblom4–1
P3 15:36STLJ. Kyrou4–2
P3 18:53DETD. LarkinEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

DET

38 shots

Final

70 shots

STL

32 shots

DET STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DETSTL

1 / 4

1.50 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.76 xG

3 / 15

1.59 xG

Medium

0 / 9

1.00 xG

1 / 30

0.51 xG

Low

1 / 39

0.57 xG

High-danger looks: DET 1 of 4, STL 1 of 3.

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

In the net

J. Gibson

+0.3

DET · 20/22

J. Binnington

−0.4

STL · 15/19

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings 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 7–6

00:47STLB. Schenn(C. Parayko, P. Broberg)0–1
12:01DETB. Chiarot(M. Appleton, A. DeBrincat)1–1
19:24DETA. DeBrincatpower play(M. Seider, D. Larkin)2–1

2ndshots 7–12

11:14DETD. Larkin(S. Edvinsson, L. Raymond)3–1
12:56DETE. Soderblom(M. Rasmussen, J. van Riemsdyk)4–1

3rdshots 6–4

15:36STLJ. Kyrou(P. Suter, P. Broberg)4–2
18:53DETD. Larkinempty net(L. Raymond)5–2

score reads DET–STL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.60

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.063

DET puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.0%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.60Expected goals2.33

DET 61% of the chance quality

20Shots on goal22

4High-danger chances3

49All attempts (Corsi)51

Adjusted for score: DET 46% · STL 54%

Faceoffs · STL won50%off39%neu31%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DET1 / 4 · 1.50 xG

STL1 / 3 · 0.76 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DET3 / 15 · 1.59 xG

STL0 / 9 · 1.00 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DET1 / 30 · 0.51 xG

STL1 / 39 · 0.57 xG

DET went 3-for-15 from medium danger on 1.59 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DET

5 G · 3.60 xG · +1.4

STL

2 G · 2.33 xG · -0.3

0123456

DET finished +1.4 against expected, STL -0.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DET

WRIST2/20

SLAP0/7

TIP IN2/3

SNAP1/3

BACKHAND0/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/11

STL

WRIST1/22

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/4

SNAP1/2

BACKHAND0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/19

DET

STL

Off the rush

3 G on 24

2.06 xG

2 G on 22

1.56 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.18 xG

0 G on 3

0.54 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-20, STL 1-for-22. DET 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. Gibson

DET · 20/22 · .909

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.8-0.2

Medium0/91.0+1.0

Low1/390.6-0.4

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 · 15/19 · .789

-0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.5+0.5

Medium3/151.6-1.4

Low1/300.5-0.5

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

70 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DET

38 shots

Final

70 shots

STL

32 shots

DET STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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

D. Larkin

#71 · C · DET

2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:27 on ice

P. Broberg

#6 · D · STL

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:48 on ice · +1

L. Raymond

#23 · L · DET

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:09 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:32 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 projects a 2.4–2.5 goal game with the Blues at 53% win probability—barely favoring St. Louis. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Detroit's form suggests upside: 7-3-0 in the last ten, a winning streak that typically carries momentum. St. Louis sits minus-8 in goal differential over the same span, scoring less than it's conceding—a sign results are deteriorating even as underlying play looks sound.

And that play is genuinely even. Both teams own 49.0% expected goals share. Corsi percentages nearly match: Detroit 49.0%, St. Louis 48.0%. The only meaningful divergence lives in PDO, a measure of shooting and save-percentage luck. Detroit at 0.985, St. Louis at 1.000, suggests the Blues are outscoring their process—the sort of edge that tends to reverse.

Detroit holds a rest advantage (three days versus one), but goaltending angles sharper. J. Hofer potentially runs on empty after a back-to-back, and a tired starter or cold backup reshapes game state in minutes.

Forward matchups reveal concentrated offensive firepower. Alex DeBrincat anchors Detroit at 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes, 17 goals, and 9.0% shooting—conversion at a sustainable rate. He owns two high-danger chances, the looks that decide games. Marco Kasper provides secondary scoring at 0.81 xG/60 but just 6.1% shooting, suggesting sound process with results lagging.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud at 0.86 xG/60 and 11.9% shooting—meaningfully higher and suggesting durable production. Dylan Holloway complements him at 0.82 xG/60 and 10.8% shooting, similar profile.

Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's primary defensive liability. For St. Louis, that designation goes to Jimmy Snuggerud—a forward who generates offense but exposes the team defensively.

This is the rare game where the model's hedge is justified. Neither team owns a clear edge. The winner likely depends on who converts chances first.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 53%

53%

STL

Model favorite

47%

53%

DET50STL

STL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.4–2.5 STL; 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

DET← edge

edge →STL

49.0%49.0%

49.0%48.0%

2.382.34

2.502.40

1.732.00

2.072.12

0.9851.000

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.000) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DET

7-3-0

+2 GD · 3d rest

STL

4-5-1

-8 GD · 1d rest

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

J. Hofer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Red Wings are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
The Blues are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
The Red Wings have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

3 days rest.862 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

STL

Expected in goal

J. Hofer

back-to-back.800 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.

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

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

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