Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Thu, Oct 30 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at STL

Canucks steal one from the Blues against the run of play

Final / OTThu, Oct 30
VANVancouver Canucks4STLSt. Louis Blues3
The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.02–4.52 and won anyway.

VAN 4 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:10 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

Vancouver won 4–3 in a shootout while generating just 31 percent of expected goals—the Blues had 4.52 xG to the Canucks' 2.02. This was a heist on ice. St. Louis controlled 68 percent of shot attempts and generated six high-danger chances to Vancouver's two, yet left with zero points.

The divergence came down to goaltending and execution. K. Lankinen (VAN) saved 1.52 goals above expected, finishing with a 0.923 save percentage on 39 shots. J. Binnington (STL) did the inverse, coughing up 0.98 goals he should have stopped, at 0.833 on just 18 shots. The Blues generated far more quality chances per shot—0.063 xG per attempt versus Vancouver's 0.040—and squandered the edge.

Special teams tilted the knife. St. Louis went 2-for-16 on the power play despite generating 1.47 xG; Vancouver converted on the rush at a higher rate, with two goals on 21 chances against St. Louis's two on 33. In the shootout, Jake DeBrusk's wrist shot from the high slot was the decider.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Oct 30
VAN
4
STL
3

Canucks steal one from the Blues against the run of play

Chances 2.0 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.02
STL
4.52
31% of the chances69%

The board read VAN 4, STL 3. The chances read VAN 2.0, STL 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+2.0
goals above expected
VAN2.02 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
STL4.52 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks scored 2.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:23STLD. Holloway0–1
  2. P1 13:08VANK. SherwoodPP1–1
  3. P2 00:58STLJ. SnuggerudPP1–2
  4. P2 10:42VANK. Sherwood2–2
  5. P3 07:04VANK. Sherwood3–2
  6. P3 10:48STLP. SuterPP3–3
  7. SO 00:00VANJ. DeBruskPP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
34 shots
4
Final
92 shots
STL
58 shots
3
VAN attackSTL attack
VAN STL Goal
34
shots · 4 in
58
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANSTL
0 / 2
0.39 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.49 xG
2 / 10
1.20 xG
Medium
1 / 23
2.39 xG
1 / 38
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 43
0.64 xG

High-danger looks: VAN 0 of 2, STL 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
K. Lankinen
+1.5
VAN · 36/39
D-
J. Binnington
−1.0
STL · 15/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks steal one from the Blues against the run of play

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 9–10
  1. 03:23STLD. Holloway(O. Sundqvist, P. Suter)0–1
  2. 13:08VANK. Sherwoodpower play(E. Kane)1–1
2ndshots 4–11
  1. 00:58STLJ. Snuggerudpower play(C. Fowler, J. Binnington)1–2
  2. 10:42VANK. Sherwood(D. O'Connor, M. Pettersson)2–2
3rdshots 5–16
  1. 07:04VANK. Sherwood(A. Räty, D. O'Connor)3–2
  2. 10:48STLP. Suterpower play(C. Fowler, O. Sundqvist)3–3
OTshots 0–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00VANJ. DeBruskpower play3–3

    score reads VAN–STL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.02
    VAN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.0
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.018
    VAN puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    41.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.02Expected goals4.52
    STL 69% of the chance quality
    18Shots on goal39
    2High-danger chances6
    50All attempts (Corsi)72
    Adjusted for score: VAN 42% · STL 58%
    Faceoffs · STL won50%off61%neu31%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VAN0 / 2 · 0.39 xG
    STL1 / 6 · 1.49 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VAN2 / 10 · 1.20 xG
    STL1 / 23 · 2.39 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VAN1 / 38 · 0.43 xG
    STL1 / 43 · 0.64 xG

    STL went 1-for-23 from medium danger on 2.39 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VAN
    4 G · 2.02 xG · +2.0
    STL
    3 G · 4.52 xG · -1.5
    012345

    VAN finished +2.0 against expected, STL -1.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VAN
    WRIST2/22
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND1/1
    TIP IN0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/19
    STL
    WRIST2/34
    SNAP1/11
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/16
    VAN
    STL
    Off the rush
    2 G on 21
    1.83 xG
    2 G on 33
    2.90 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.05 xG
    1 G on 6
    0.94 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 2-for-22, STL 2-for-34. 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 · 36/39 · .923
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.5+0.5
    Medium1/232.4+1.4
    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

    J. Binnington
    STL · 15/18 · .833
    -1.0
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium2/101.2-0.8
    Low1/380.4-0.6

    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

    92 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    VAN
    34 shots
    4
    Final
    92 shots
    STL
    58 shots
    3
    VAN attackSTL attack
    VAN STL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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
    K. Sherwood
    #44 · L · VAN
    3 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 24:12 on ice · +1
    C. Fowler
    #17 · D · STL
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:41 on ice
    P. Suter
    #22 · C · STL
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:22 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Oct 30
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:52 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 gives St. Louis a 57% win probability, projecting a 2.3 - 2.7 victory. That edge rests on a clearer structural advantage: the Blues are generating 49.0% of expected goals at 5v5, while Vancouver sits at 44.0%. Their Corsi numbers (48.0% to 46.0%) reinforce the same picture—St. Louis is winning the possession battle consistently.

    Both teams are bleeding results over their last 10 games: St. Louis is -15 in goal differential, Vancouver -8. The problem for the Canucks, though, isn't the underlying play—it's the scoreboard disconnect. Vancouver's PDO sits at 0.974, well below league normal, suggesting they're running cold on finishing and goaltending luck. St. Louis sits at league-neutral 1.000. That gap is the kind of thing that corrects, and it favors the team selling cheap now.

    The wrinkle is goaltending on a back-to-back: watch whether either J. Binnington or T. Demko starts or if a backup gets the nod. A fatigued starter could flatten the model's edge.

    On the ice, Vancouver leans on Filip Chytil's efficiency—1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes across 3 goals and 0 assists, with an unusually sharp 15.0% shooting rate. That kind of finishing can't hold; his 1 high-danger goal suggests a player closer to conversion regression than departure. Drew O'Connor (13 goals, 11 assists) carries more volume at 0.85 xG/60, with 3 high-danger goals and an 11.8% shooting rate that's also elevated. St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud's versatility—0.86 xG/60, 15 goals and 22 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 11.9% shooting—making him dangerous across multiple game states. Dylan Holloway (13 goals, 24 assists) offers similar dual-threat weight at 0.82 xG/60, though his 1 high-danger goal and 10.8% shooting rate leave room for offensive upside.

    A tactical oddity: both teams are clocking 0% on high-danger and rebound-goal rates, suggesting either conservative play in danger areas or dumb luck on both sides. Victor Mancini emerges as Vancouver's defensive weak link; Jimmy Snuggerud as St. Louis's. The Blues, holding the puck and the model, should win this one.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    STL 57%
    57%
    STL
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    VAN50STL

    STL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.3–2.7 STL; 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 →STL
    44.0%49.0%
    46.0%48.0%
    2.222.34
    2.812.40
    1.602.00
    2.562.12
    0.9741.000

    STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 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
    VAN
    4-6-0
    -8 GD · 1d rest
    STL
    3-6-1
    -15 GD · 1d rest
    0.974
    VAN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Blues own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Blues own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • T. Demko is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Blues are underwater at -15 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Canucks are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    VAN
    Expected in goal
    T. Demko
    back-to-back.958 last start
    Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.

    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Binnington
    back-to-back.789 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
    VAN
    Filip Chytil3G 0A
    1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Drew O'Connor13G 11A
    0.85 xG/60 · 3 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