Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Sat, Nov 1 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at EDM

Oilers edge the Blackhawks in overtime

Final / OTSat, Nov 1
CHIChicago Blackhawks2EDMEdmonton Oilers3
The verdict · coin flip

The Oilers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

CHI 2 · EDM 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:18 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 Oilers edged the Blackhawks 3–2 in overtime despite expected goals that stayed tight (4.07–3.79). Edmonton's high-danger edge (9–6) and power-play dominance (two goals on nine shots) explained the result. When one team converts special-teams chances at that rate, a 1-goal margin is earned.

Goaltending was a factor. S. Skinner outperformed his save expectations by 1.79 goals; S. Knight by 1.07. But Chicago's struggle to finish told the real story: they underperformed their xG by 1.79 goals, nearly double Edmonton's 1.07 shortfall. That variance—quality chances squandered—is where games are lost.

Evan Bouchard's snap shot from the doorstep at 2:43 of overtime sealed the 3–2 result. The Oilers' special-teams efficiency and Chicago's inability to finish had been the difference all night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 1
CHI
2
EDM
3

Oilers edge the Blackhawks in overtime

Chances 3.8 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Oilers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
3.79
EDM
4.07
48% of the chances52%

The board read CHI 2, EDM 3. The chances read CHI 3.8, EDM 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−1.1
goals above expected
EDM4.07 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI3.79 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 1.8 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. P2 00:54EDML. DraisaitlPP0–1
  2. P2 08:32CHIT. BertuzziPP1–1
  3. P2 17:17EDMJ. RoslovicPP1–2
  4. P3 03:19CHIA. Burakovsky2–2
  5. OT 02:43EDME. Bouchard2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
43 shots
2
Final
87 shots
EDM
44 shots
3
CHI attackEDM attack
CHI EDM Goal
43
shots · 2 in
44
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIEDM
2 / 6
1.74 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.23 xG
0 / 12
1.45 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.35 xG
0 / 39
0.61 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.49 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 2 of 6, EDM 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Skinner
+1.8
EDM · 27/29
B+
S. Knight
+1.1
CHI · 27/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers edge the Blackhawks in overtime

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 6–13no goals
    2ndshots 11–10
    1. 00:54EDML. Draisaitlpower play(R. Nugent-Hopkins, C. McDavid)0–1
    2. 08:32CHIT. Bertuzzipower play(C. Bedard, A. Burakovsky)1–1
    3. 17:17EDMJ. Roslovicpower play(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)1–2
    3rdshots 11–4
    1. 03:19CHIA. Burakovsky(A. Levshunov, R. Greene)2–2
    OTshots 1–3
    1. 02:43EDME. Bouchard(L. Draisaitl, C. McDavid)2–3

    score reads CHI–EDM

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.07
    EDM chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.012
    EDM puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    52.9%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.79Expected goals4.07
    EDM 52% of the chance quality
    29Shots on goal30
    6High-danger chances9
    57All attempts (Corsi)64
    Adjusted for score: CHI 48% · EDM 52%
    Faceoffs · EDM won64%off50%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI2 / 6 · 1.74 xG
    EDM1 / 9 · 2.23 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI0 / 12 · 1.45 xG
    EDM2 / 13 · 1.35 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI0 / 39 · 0.61 xG
    EDM0 / 42 · 0.49 xG

    CHI went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.45 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    2 G · 3.79 xG · -1.8
    EDM
    3 G · 4.07 xG · -1.1
    012345

    CHI finished -1.8 against expected, EDM -1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    WRIST0/27
    SNAP1/1
    SLAP0/8
    TIP IN1/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    POKE0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/14
    EDM
    WRIST0/10
    SNAP2/22
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN1/4
    BACKHAND0/4
    POKE0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/20
    CHI
    EDM
    Off the rush
    1 G on 26
    2.56 xG
    2 G on 29
    2.85 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 3
    0.62 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.76 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 0-for-27, EDM 0-for-10. EDM 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
    S. Knight
    CHI · 27/30 · .900
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/92.2+1.2
    Medium2/131.4-0.7
    Low0/420.5+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. Skinner
    EDM · 27/29 · .931
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.7-0.3
    Medium0/121.4+1.4
    Low0/390.6+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

    87 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    43 shots
    2
    Final
    87 shots
    EDM
    44 shots
    3
    CHI attackEDM attack
    CHI EDM Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, EDM 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. McDavid
    #97 · C · EDM
    0 G · 3 A · 5 SOG · 25:04 on ice · +1
    E. Bouchard
    #2 · D · EDM
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:21 on ice · +1
    L. Draisaitl
    #29 · C · EDM
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:22 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Nov 1
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:15 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

    Edmonton holds a 60% win probability according to the model, which projects a 2.3 to 2.9 goal range. The verdict follows the underlying play: the Oilers' 52.0% expected goal share against Chicago's 42.0% suggests territorial dominance that the Blackhawks will struggle to match.

    Possession metrics reinforce this. Edmonton's 50.0% Corsi sits comfortably ahead of Chicago's 46.0%, signaling sustained puck control and shot volume in their favor. The Blackhawks will spend stretches defending, not initiating.

    The hidden edge lives in PDO regression. Edmonton runs cold at 0.982, meaning pucks are bouncing against them—unsustainable over a season. Chicago sits at 0.996, riding slight variance in their favor. Positive regression favors Edmonton here; the Oilers' underlying metrics warrant higher conversion.

    The matchups tell the story. Connor McDavid leads Edmonton with 25 goals and 33 assists, posting 0.92 expected goals per 60 minutes. Chicago counters with Connor Bedard's 17 goals and 27 assists at 0.82 xG/60—elite production that plays second fiddle in this pairing. On the wing, Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 15A, 0.85 xG/60) has found 18.0% shooting luck this season, while Zach Hyman (14G, 13A, 1.23 xG/60) remains Edmonton's most dangerous volume scorer despite modest goal totals. Hyman's 1.23 xG/60 suggests he's generating chances at a rate his goal total hasn't yet reflected—another regression play favoring the Oilers.

    Goaltending carries risk for both. S. Skinner enters Edmonton's back-to-back situation, where fatigue or a backup appearance becomes plausible. Chicago's S. Knight faces identical scheduling pressure, introducing backup-start volatility.

    Tactical asymmetry favors Edmonton. Both teams show 0% high-danger goal and rebound goal rates—a statistical quirk suggesting sheltered scoring contexts or sample-size noise. Defensively, Chicago's weak link at Anton Frondell invites targeted forecheck intensity; Edmonton's Jake Walman faces similar exposure. The difference: Walman will absorb that pressure while Edmonton controls tempo. Frondell's burden is heavier when Chicago lacks puck possession.

    The model sees Edmonton's fundamentals as superior despite close projected scoring. Back-to-back fatigue and PDO variance inject uncertainty, but the odds favor the better play.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    EDM 60%
    60%
    EDM
    Model favorite
    40%
    60%
    CHI50EDM

    EDM by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.9 EDM; 17% 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
    CHI← edge
    edge →EDM
    42.0%52.0%
    46.0%50.0%
    2.172.64
    2.942.47
    1.842.13
    2.412.29
    0.9960.982

    EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.982) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CHI
    5-3-2
    +5 GD · 1d rest
    EDM
    4-4-2
    -2 GD · 1d rest
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.982
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    back-to-back.813 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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.

    EDM
    Expected in goal
    S. Skinner
    back-to-back.886 last start
    Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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
    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
    EDM
    Zach Hyman14G 13A
    1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
    Connor McDavid25G 33A
    0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page