Breakdown · OTT at CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Senators

FinalTue, Oct 28

OTTOttawa Senators3 CHIChicago Blackhawks7

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · CHI 7

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:35 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 Blackhawks beat the Senators 7-3 — a convincing scoreline for a game expected goals said should have been nearly even. Chicago's 2.94 xG against Ottawa's 2.63 suggested a tight contest, yet the Blackhawks won by four. They simply finished better.

Chicago was clinical in the high-danger zone, converting 2 of 4 chances (50%). They also scored twice from low-danger areas — opportunities L. Ullmark should have stopped. Most telling: the Blackhawks scored seven times on 22 rush chances. Ottawa scored twice on 21 rush attempts. On the rush, Chicago executed; Ottawa squandered.

C. Bedard led Chicago with three goals and an assist. F. Nazar, whose wrist shot from the high slot proved decisive, added a goal and an assist. D. Batherson posted two assists for Ottawa.

S. Knight made 21 saves on 24 shots (0.875 save percentage), unspectacular but steady. L. Ullmark surrendered 3.1 goals beyond expected on 25 shots (0.760), the cost of facing an opponent that converted relentlessly.

The Blackhawks outperformed their expected goals by 4.06 — elite finishing or fortune, or both. When xG says close and the scoreboard says blowout, the difference is finishing: Chicago executed on the rush, Ottawa did not.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 28

OTT

CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Senators

Chances 2.6 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blackhawks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

OTT

2.63

CHI

2.94

47% of the chances53%

The board read OTT 3, CHI 7. The chances read OTT 2.6, CHI 2.9.

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

Luck check

CHI

+4.1

goals above expected

CHI2.94 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

OTT2.63 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blackhawks scored 4.1 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 06:47CHIC. Dach0–1
P1 12:06CHIL. Crevier0–2
P1 17:53CHIC. BedardPP0–3
P2 02:58CHIC. Bedard0–4
P2 04:58OTTJ. Sanderson1–4
P2 07:09OTTM. Amadio2–4
P2 08:31OTTT. Stützle3–4

+3 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

OTT

42 shots

Final

80 shots

CHI

38 shots

OTT CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 7 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

OTTCHI

0 / 3

0.76 xG

High danger

2 / 4

1.59 xG

2 / 13

1.31 xG

Medium

3 / 9

0.85 xG

1 / 43

0.57 xG

Low

2 / 42

0.50 xG

The Senators went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

S. Knight

−0.4

CHI · 21/24

L. Ullmark

−3.1

OTT · 19/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks pull away from the Senators

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 7–8

06:47CHIC. Dach(L. Crevier, N. Foligno)0–1
12:06CHIL. Crevier(J. Dickinson, A. Vlasic)0–2
17:53CHIC. Bedardpower play(A. Burakovsky, F. Nazar)0–3

2ndshots 9–5

02:58CHIC. Bedard(M. Grzelcyk, A. Levshunov)0–4
04:58OTTJ. Sanderson(D. Batherson, T. Stützle)1–4
07:09OTTM. Amadio(A. Zub)2–4
08:31OTTT. Stützle(N. Matinpalo, D. Batherson)3–4

3rdshots 8–13

03:46CHIC. Bedard(R. Greene)3–5
08:24CHIR. Donato(C. Bedard, A. Burakovsky)3–6
12:44CHIF. Nazarempty net(N. Foligno)3–7

score reads OTT–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.94

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+4.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.076

CHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

48.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.63Expected goals2.94

CHI 53% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal26

3High-danger chances4

59All attempts (Corsi)55

Adjusted for score: OTT 57% · CHI 43%

Faceoffs · CHI won58%off19%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

OTT0 / 3 · 0.76 xG

CHI2 / 4 · 1.59 xG

Medium dangermid-range

OTT2 / 13 · 1.31 xG

CHI3 / 9 · 0.85 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

OTT1 / 43 · 0.57 xG

CHI2 / 42 · 0.50 xG

CHI went 3-for-9 from medium danger on 0.85 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

OTT

3 G · 2.63 xG · +0.4

CHI

7 G · 2.94 xG · +4.1

012345678

OTT finished +0.4 against expected, CHI +4.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

OTT

WRIST3/31

SLAP0/6

SNAP0/0

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/17

CHI

WRIST5/26

SLAP0/5

SNAP2/7

TIP IN0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/17

OTT

CHI

Off the rush

2 G on 21

1.86 xG

7 G on 22

2.39 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.10 xG

0 G on 3

0.33 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 3-for-31, CHI 5-for-26. 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

L. Ullmark

OTT · 19/25 · .760

-3.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.6-0.4

Medium3/90.8-2.1

Low2/420.5-1.5

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 · 21/24 · .875

-0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.8+0.8

Medium2/131.3-0.7

Low1/430.6-0.4

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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

OTT

42 shots

Final

80 shots

CHI

38 shots

OTT CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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

C. Bedard

#98 · C · CHI

3 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 16:25 on ice · +2

D. Batherson

#19 · R · OTT

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:54 on ice · +1

F. Nazar

#91 · C · CHI

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:33 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, 2:00 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 backs Ottawa at 59% win probability—a 2.8–2.3 projection grounded in underlying play. The Senators command 56.0% 5v5 xG to Chicago's 42.0%, a gap that reflects genuine shot-quality dominance, not variance. Ottawa's 53.0% Corsi rate means the Blackhawks rarely possess the puck; when they do, they're defending.

Brady Tkachuk (11G, 2 HD goals) generates the most consistent threat at 1.19 xG/60 despite modest 7.5% shooting—he's creating danger faster than he's finishing it. Dylan Cozens (13G, 1 HD goal) operates at 1.00 xG/60 with 9.5% shooting, similarly prolific in chance creation but converting at a restrained clip. Together they're why Ottawa's edge compounds. Chicago's shot-rate deficit (46.0% Corsi) makes climbing back exponentially harder.

The Blackhawks have snipers, though. Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 7 HD goals) converts at elite efficiency despite modest underlying chance creation at 0.85 xG/60—his 18.0% shooting rate proves his lethality. Connor Bedard (17G, 5 HD goals) operates from lower-xG looks at 0.82 xG/60 but distributes at 27 assists, a safety valve if Chicago needs to grind.

Both teams show structural weakness in second-chance generation: 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound rate. Discipline in the defensive zone could be a wedge for whichever team tightens first.

The defensive matchup favors Ottawa's pressure. Chicago's Anton Frondell will absorb significant assignments against Tkachuk and Cozens. Nick Jensen carries the load for Ottawa—a risk given the Senators' forecheck intensity, but Frondell likely has the harder night.

L. Meriläinen playing back-to-back games introduces fatigue risk; monitor whether Ottawa's depth goaltending enters the equation early.

Three Stars

Brady Tkachuk (OTT)
Tyler Bertuzzi (CHI)
Connor Bedard (CHI)

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 59%

59%

OTT

Model favorite

59%

41%

OTT50CHI

OTT by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score OTT 2.8–2.3 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

OTT← edge

edge →CHI

56.0%42.0%

53.0%46.0%

2.662.17

2.122.94

2.181.84

1.992.41

0.9930.996

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

OTT

5-4-1

+1 GD · 1d rest

CHI

4-4-2

-1 GD · 2d rest

0.993

OTT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
L. Meriläinen 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

OTT

Expected in goal

L. Meriläinen

back-to-back.929 last start

Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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.

CHI

Expected in goal

A. Soderblom

2 days rest.905 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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

OTT

Brady Tkachuk11G 20A

1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh

Dylan Cozens13G 15A

1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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