Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater

Breakdown · EDM at STL

Blues hold off the Oilers

FinalMon, Nov 3

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 2 · STL 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:29 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 dominated shot volume, holding 54% of attempts. But the Blues won the expected goals battle—54% to 46%—and won the game 3-2. That's an 8-point efficiency gap that decided the night.

St. Louis generated higher-quality chances. They averaged 0.061 expected goals per shot to Edmonton's 0.041—a significant difference in shot quality. In high-danger areas, the Blues were clinical: 2 goals on 5 attempts (40%). They also won the rebound battle, converting 2 of 3 opportunities.

Edmonton's primary weapon was the rush. The Oilers scored 2 goals on 22 rush chances—low volume but effective. C. McDavid assisted on both, finishing with 2 assists in 21:30. R. Nugent-Hopkins added 2 assists of his own.

The goaltending reflected the underlying play. J. Binnington stopped 24 of 26 for St. Louis (0.923 SV%), benefiting from fewer high-danger looks. C. Pickard made 19 of 22 for Edmonton (0.864 SV%), paying for shot volume with tougher locations.

Pius Suter's wrist shot from the doorstep in the third (18:37) was the turning point—a play that summed up the night: high-quality, efficient, and decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 3

EDM

STL

Blues hold off the Oilers

Chances 2.5 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

EDM

2.45

STL

2.84

46% of the chances54%

The board read EDM 2, STL 3. The chances read EDM 2.5, STL 2.8.

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

Luck check

STL

+0.2

goals above expected

STL2.84 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

EDM2.45 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 18:38EDMJ. RoslovicPP1–0
P2 02:27EDMA. Mangiapane2–0
P2 16:08STLD. DvorskyPP2–1
P2 18:38STLR. Thomas2–2
P3 18:37STLP. Suter2–3

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

Where the shots came from

EDM

37 shots

Final

72 shots

STL

35 shots

EDM STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

EDMSTL

0 / 2

0.44 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.10 xG

2 / 13

1.54 xG

Medium

1 / 12

1.29 xG

0 / 45

0.47 xG

Low

0 / 30

0.45 xG

The Blues buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Binnington

+0.5

STL · 24/26

C. Pickard

−0.2

EDM · 19/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blues hold off the Oilers

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 8–9

18:38EDMJ. Roslovicpower play(C. McDavid, R. Nugent-Hopkins)1–0

2ndshots 11–9

02:27EDMA. Mangiapane(R. Nugent-Hopkins, C. McDavid)2–0
16:08STLD. Dvorskypower play(J. Faulk, R. Thomas)2–1
18:38STLR. Thomas(P. Broberg, J. Snuggerud)2–2

3rdshots 7–4

18:37STLP. Suter(C. Parayko, B. Schenn)2–3

score reads EDM–STL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.84

STL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.030

STL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

43.9%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.45Expected goals2.84

STL 54% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal22

2High-danger chances5

60All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: EDM 54% · STL 46%

Faceoffs · STL won31%off56%neu35%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

EDM0 / 2 · 0.44 xG

STL2 / 5 · 1.10 xG

Medium dangermid-range

EDM2 / 13 · 1.54 xG

STL1 / 12 · 1.29 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

EDM0 / 45 · 0.47 xG

STL0 / 30 · 0.45 xG

STL went 2-for-5 from high danger on 1.10 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

EDM

2 G · 2.45 xG · -0.5

STL

3 G · 2.84 xG · +0.2

01234

EDM finished -0.5 against expected, STL +0.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

EDM

WRIST1/21

SNAP1/9

SLAP0/5

BAT0/1

TIP IN0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

BACKHAND0/0

OTHER0/23

STL

WRIST2/18

SNAP0/6

SLAP1/7

BAT0/1

TIP IN0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/12

EDM

STL

Off the rush

2 G on 22

1.83 xG

1 G on 23

2.06 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.46 xG

2 G on 3

0.57 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 1-for-21, STL 2-for-18. 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

C. Pickard

EDM · 19/22 · .864

-0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.1-0.9

Medium1/121.3+0.3

Low0/300.5+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

J. Binnington

STL · 24/26 · .923

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium2/131.5-0.5

Low0/450.5+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

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

EDM

37 shots

Final

72 shots

STL

35 shots

EDM STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:30 on ice

R. Thomas

#18 · C · STL

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:56 on ice

R. Nugent-Hopkins

#93 · C · EDM

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 19:17 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Nov 3

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:27 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

This is 50-50. The model projects a 2.5–2.5 game with the Blues at even probability, which means go with process, not prediction.

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG% against 49.0% — backed by a 50.0% Corsi edge over St. Louis's 48.0%. But they're running cold at 0.982 PDO, due for positive regression, while the Blues are running hot at 1.000. That equation neutralizes Edmonton's fundamental advantage. The Oilers are sharper by points pace (4-4-2 in ten) while St. Louis drowns in -14 goal differential over the same stretch; that gap should mean more. It probably does, just not enough to move the needle here.

The edge battle comes down to star containment. Connor McDavid generates 0.92 xG per 60 with 25 goals and 33 assists, converting at 13.7% with five high-danger chances. Zach Hyman produces 1.23 xG/60 with 14 goals, 13 assists, and one high-danger goal, shooting 13.0% — a volume threat hitting at league rate. St. Louis must neutralize both.

The Blues counter with Jimmy Snuggerud at 0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 22 assists, and two high-danger chances (11.9% shooting), and Dylan Holloway at 0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 24 assists, and one high-danger chance (10.8% shooting). Both are producing; neither carries McDavid's ceiling.

Edmonton's structural weakness: 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. That's efficiency left on the table when it matters. Jake Walman is a defensive liability Edmonton can't afford to expose. St. Louis has its own 0% high-danger and 0% rebound rates, mirroring that same unfinished game, but deploys Jimmy Snuggerud as a defensive weak link. Watch S. Skinner on the back-to-back; the Blues may go backup.

One team owns the process. Edmonton has the underlying advantage. That's where the value lives in a true coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 50%

50%

STL

Model favorite

50%

EDM50STL

STL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.5–2.5 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

EDM← edge

edge →STL

52.0%49.0%

50.0%48.0%

2.642.34

2.472.40

2.132.00

2.292.12

0.9821.000

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 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

EDM

4-4-2

-3 GD · 1d rest

STL

2-6-2

-14 GD · 2d rest

0.982

EDM 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 Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.

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 49.0%.
S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Oilers are the hotter team by points pace (4-4-2 in their last 10).
The Blues are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

EDM

Expected in goal

S. Skinner

back-to-back.931 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.

STL

Expected in goal

J. Hofer

2 days rest.914 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +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

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

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