Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
← Mon, Nov 3 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at SEA

J. Daccord stands tall as the Kraken edge the Blackhawks

FinalMon, Nov 3
CHIChicago Blackhawks1SEASeattle Kraken3
The verdict · stolen

The Kraken stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.47–3.46 and won anyway.

CHI 1 · SEA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:30 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 Kraken won 3–1, but the underlying play suggested otherwise. Chicago controlled 56% of expected goals at 5v5 and registered 10 high-danger chances to Seattle's 2. The Blackhawks played better and lost anyway.

This was goaltending that stole a result. J. Daccord made 29 of 30 saves (0.967 SV%), finishing +3.47 goals above expected. On 10 high-danger chances, he stopped 9. A. Soderblom (Chicago, 21/24, 0.875 SV%) gave up three.

Chicago's finishing collapsed: 4.47 expected goals, 1 goal scored. They underperformed their xG by 3.47. The Kraken, thin on chances, converted what mattered. M. Beniers (1G, 1A in 19:05) and J. Eberle (1G, 1A in 17:31) struck on transition—Seattle netted 2 goals from 18 rush attempts. Eberle's wrist shot from the high slot came in the third period (16:05), the turning point.

The shot-attempt gap (24–30 in Chicago's favor) captured the game: Blackhawks pressed, Kraken sat back and countered. Daccord's 0.967 mark made the strategy work.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 3
CHI
1
SEA
3

J. Daccord stands tall as the Kraken edge the Blackhawks

Chances 4.5 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
4.47
SEA
3.46
56% of the chances44%

The board read CHI 1, SEA 3. The chances read CHI 4.5, SEA 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
−0.5
goals above expected
SEA3.46 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI4.47 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 3.5 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 02:57SEAJ. Oleksiak0–1
  2. P2 07:36SEAM. BeniersPP0–2
  3. P3 11:33CHIA. Burakovsky1–2
  4. P3 16:05SEAJ. Eberle1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
45 shots
1
Final
79 shots
SEA
34 shots
3
CHI attackSEA attack
CHI SEA Goal
45
shots · 1 in
34
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHISEA
1 / 10
2.28 xG
High danger
0 / 2
1.36 xG
0 / 13
1.53 xG
Medium
2 / 16
1.75 xG
0 / 42
0.65 xG
Low
1 / 27
0.35 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 1 of 10, SEA 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Daccord
+3.5
SEA · 29/30
B
A. Soderblom
+0.5
CHI · 21/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Daccord stands tall as the Kraken edge the Blackhawks

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 10–10no goals
    2ndshots 14–5
    1. 02:57SEAJ. Oleksiak0–1
    2. 07:36SEAM. Benierspower play(J. Eberle, E. Tolvanen)0–2
    3rdshots 6–9
    1. 11:33CHIA. Burakovsky(C. Bedard)1–2
    2. 16:05SEAJ. Eberle(M. Beniers)1–3

    score reads CHI–SEA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.46
    SEA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.051
    SEA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    40.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.47Expected goals3.46
    CHI 56% of the chance quality
    30Shots on goal24
    10High-danger chances2
    65All attempts (Corsi)45
    Adjusted for score: CHI 64% · SEA 36%
    Faceoffs · SEA won42%off41%neu44%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI1 / 10 · 2.28 xG
    SEA0 / 2 · 1.36 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI0 / 13 · 1.53 xG
    SEA2 / 16 · 1.75 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI0 / 42 · 0.65 xG
    SEA1 / 27 · 0.35 xG

    CHI went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.53 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    1 G · 4.47 xG · -3.5
    SEA
    3 G · 3.46 xG · -0.5
    012345

    CHI finished -3.5 against expected, SEA -0.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    WRIST1/30
    TIP IN0/6
    SNAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    SLAP0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/20
    SEA
    WRIST2/19
    TIP IN0/5
    SNAP1/3
    BACKHAND0/5
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/11
    CHI
    SEA
    Off the rush
    1 G on 32
    3.05 xG
    2 G on 18
    1.56 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 6
    1.03 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.28 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-30, SEA 2-for-19. SEA 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
    A. Soderblom
    CHI · 21/24 · .875
    +0.5
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/21.4+1.4
    Medium2/161.8-0.3
    Low1/270.3-0.7

    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. Daccord
    SEA · 29/30 · .967
    +3.5
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/102.3+1.3
    Medium0/131.5+1.5
    Low0/420.7+0.7

    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

    79 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    45 shots
    1
    Final
    79 shots
    SEA
    34 shots
    3
    CHI attackSEA attack
    CHI SEA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, SEA 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
    M. Beniers
    #10 · C · SEA
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:05 on ice · +1
    J. Eberle
    #7 · R · SEA
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:31 on ice
    C. Bedard
    #98 · C · CHI
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:12 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

    The model projects a CHI 2.3–2.7 SEA game with the Kraken at 56% win probability. Seattle's edge lives in 5v5 play: they generate 46.0% of expected goals compared to Chicago's 42.0%, though the Blackhawks hold a marginal Corsi% advantage at 46.0% to 45.0%. The Kraken's luck metrics (PDO of 1.011 vs. 0.996) suggest their shooting efficiency has run hot—a factor that compounds their underlying play advantage.

    Chicago's scoring depends on Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi carries the load with 0.85 xG/60 and 20 goals, including 7 from high-danger areas, at an 18.0% shooting rate. Bedard's 0.82 xG/60 and 11.8% shooting rate, paired with his 27 assists, make him harder to shut down—he's generating volume in dangerous areas but at lower conversion. Both are Seattle's primary targets on the forecheck.

    Seattle counters with Shane Wright and Berkly Catton. Wright produces 0.77 xG/60 with a 10.4% shooting rate, suggesting volume creation without elite finishing, while Catton's lower volume (0.68 xG/60) but higher efficiency (8.8%) makes him a secondary threat Chicago can't ignore. Wright has 8 goals this season; Catton has 6.

    Chicago's defensive structure centers on Anton Frondell as a weak link. Seattle's Chandler Stephenson occupies the same role. Both teams carry 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound goal rates.

    The prediction hinges on Seattle sustaining its xG% edge through sixty minutes. Chicago has the individual talent to steal this one if Bertuzzi and Bedard execute, but the underlying play model is unambiguous: the Kraken are the cleaner team.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    SEA 56%
    56%
    SEA
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    CHI50SEA

    SEA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.7 SEA; 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
    CHI← edge
    edge →SEA
    42.0%46.0%
    46.0%45.0%
    2.172.13
    2.942.51
    1.841.87
    2.411.95
    0.9961.011

    SEA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.011) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    CHI
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    SEA
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.011
    SEA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Kraken own the underlying play — 46.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Kraken own the underlying play — 46.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    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
    SEA
    Shane Wright8G 10A
    0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
    Berkly Catton6G 8A
    0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page