The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.03–5.84 and won anyway.
Chicago won the game Vancouver deserved to win. The Canucks held 59% of expected goals and 62% of shot attempts, yet lost 5-2—a variance driven entirely by execution in the danger zones and one exceptional goaltender.
S. Knight was that goaltender. He stopped 43 of 45 shots (0.956 SV%), overperforming his expected goals against by 3.84. K. Lankinen, at 0.852, offered no margin against a team that converted when the moment demanded it.
The split was binary and brutal. Chicago scored 3 of 6 high-danger chances; Vancouver scored 0 of 14. That 50% efficiency against zero is not variance—it is execution. Vancouver created more high-danger looks overall (14 to 6), then failed to finish any of them. The Canucks' two goals came from low-danger spots, a gift to opposing goalies. One goal came from the rush, where Vancouver converted 2 of 36 attempts while Chicago scored 4 from 25.
Rebound play showed the same pattern. Vancouver crashed the net and created 11 second chances, converting zero. Chicago's efficiency turned volume into a win.
The result frustrated any observer tracking possession. Vancouver outshot Chicago in attempts (45–28) and generated higher-quality looks (5.84 xG to 4.03). But the high-danger zone revealed the truth: Vancouver's 0-for-14 clip combined with S. Knight's 3.84-goal overperformance turned a should-be loss into a convincing win.

