Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
Breakdown · CHI at VAN

S. Knight stands tall as the Blackhawks edge the Canucks

The verdict · stolen

The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.03–5.84 and won anyway.

CHI 5 · VAN 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:42 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

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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 5
CHI
5
VAN
2

S. Knight stands tall as the Blackhawks edge the Canucks

Chances 4.0 – 5.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
4.03
VAN
5.84
41% of the chances59%

The board read CHI 5, VAN 2. The chances read CHI 4.0, VAN 5.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
+1.0
goals above expected
CHI4.03 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN5.84 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 3.8 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. P3 03:06CHIT. Bertuzzi1–0
  2. P3 06:46CHIT. BertuzziPP2–0
  3. P3 07:39CHII. Mikheyev3–0
  4. P3 11:37CHIT. Bertuzzi4–0
  5. P3 16:49VANA. Räty4–1
  6. P3 18:00VANE. KanePP4–2
  7. P3 19:00CHIC. BedardEN5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
41 shots
5
Final
104 shots
VAN
63 shots
2
CHI attackVAN attack
CHI VAN Goal
41
shots · 5 in
63
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIVAN
3 / 6
2.14 xG
High danger
0 / 14
3.31 xG
1 / 13
1.45 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.48 xG
1 / 40
0.44 xG
Low
2 / 45
1.05 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 14 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Knight
+3.8
CHI · 43/45
C
K. Lankinen
+0.0
VAN · 23/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

S. Knight stands tall as the Blackhawks edge the Canucks

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 11–16no goals
    2ndshots 8–19no goals
      3rdshots 9–10
      1. 03:06CHIT. Bertuzzi(M. Grzelcyk, C. Murphy)1–0
      2. 06:46CHIT. Bertuzzipower play(C. Bedard, A. Levshunov)2–0
      3. 07:39CHII. Mikheyev(R. Donato, O. Moore)3–0
      4. 11:37CHIT. Bertuzzi(L. Crevier, R. Donato)4–0
      5. 16:49VANA. Räty(P. Joseph)4–1
      6. 18:00VANE. Kanepower play(Q. Hughes, T. Willander)4–2
      7. 19:00CHIC. Bedardempty net(S. Knight)5–2

      score reads CHI–VAN

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.03
      CHI chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      +1.0
      Finishing
      Goals above what those chances were worth
      1.057
      CHI puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      45.0%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      4.03Expected goals5.84
      VAN 59% of the chance quality
      28Shots on goal45
      6High-danger chances14
      59All attempts (Corsi)72
      Adjusted for score: CHI 43% · VAN 57%
      Faceoffs · VAN won67%off47%neu54%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      CHI3 / 6 · 2.14 xG
      VAN0 / 14 · 3.31 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      CHI1 / 13 · 1.45 xG
      VAN0 / 13 · 1.48 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      CHI1 / 40 · 0.44 xG
      VAN2 / 45 · 1.05 xG

      VAN went 0-for-14 from high danger on 3.31 expected goals — 3.3 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      CHI
      5 G · 4.03 xG · +1.0
      VAN
      2 G · 5.84 xG · -3.8
      01234567

      CHI finished +1.0 against expected, VAN -3.8.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      CHI
      WRIST3/28
      SNAP0/1
      SLAP0/6
      BACKHAND1/3
      TIP IN0/1
      DEFLECTED1/2
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      OTHER0/18
      VAN
      WRIST0/28
      SNAP1/14
      SLAP1/9
      BACKHAND0/3
      TIP IN0/5
      DEFLECTED0/2
      WRAP AROUND0/2
      OTHER0/9
      CHI
      VAN
      Off the rush
      4 G on 25
      3.32 xG
      2 G on 36
      3.50 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 2
      0.36 xG
      0 G on 11
      1.65 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 3-for-28, VAN 0-for-28. CHI scored 4 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 · 43/45 · .956
      +3.8
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/143.3+3.3
      Medium0/131.5+1.5
      Low2/451.1-0.9

      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

      K. Lankinen
      VAN · 23/27 · .852
      +0.0
      saved above expected
      C
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger3/62.1-0.9
      Medium1/131.4+0.5
      Low1/400.4-0.6

      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

      104 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      CHI
      41 shots
      5
      Final
      104 shots
      VAN
      63 shots
      2
      CHI attackVAN attack
      CHI VAN Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, VAN 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
      T. Bertuzzi
      #59 · L · CHI
      3 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 20:27 on ice · +1
      C. Bedard
      #98 · C · CHI
      1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 20:32 on ice
      R. Donato
      #8 · C · CHI
      0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 11:36 on ice · +2
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Wed, Nov 5
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:41 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 as close to a toss-up as NHL models produce. The projection sits at a 2.5–2.7 expected margin for Chicago with Vancouver holding a 54% win probability—barely a lean, not a conviction. Either team winning is entirely within the noise.

      Structurally, the Canucks have earned that thin edge on underlying metrics: 44.0% expected goals share against Chicago's 42.0%, and identical 46.0% Corsi rates suggest neither team has seized territory control. But Vancouver's form over its last 10 games tells a different story—the team sits at -6 goal differential, underwater across a solid sample. That stretch plays into Chicago's angle more than it should.

      The season-long PDO split widens the picture. Vancouver's 0.974 is running cold by definition, a regression candidate due a bounce in the coming week. Chicago's 0.996, by contrast, is slightly lucky but not dramatically so. This gap doesn't swing games on its own, but it tilts the variance when two otherwise-similar teams collide.

      Goaltending introduces fatigue as a compounding factor. Both A. Soderblom and T. Demko take the net off a back-to-back, a situation that typically favors the team with fresher forward legs. That's neutral here—each team's depth absorbs the starter's possible listlessness.

      Chicago's offensive load rests on Tyler Bertuzzi, who carries 20G 15A with 0.85 xG/60 and 7 HD goals at 18.0% shooting—volume without unsustainability. Connor Bedard trails at 17G 27A on 0.82 xG/60 and 5 HD goals, shooting just 11.8%; the low rate suggests missed opportunity or poor positioning rather than regression. Vancouver counters with Filip Chytil generating 1.03 xG/60 (the highest on the ice) but converting at only 3G on 0A, a mismatch that speaks to either puck luck or draft inefficiency. Drew O'Connor (13G 11A, 0.85 xG/60, 3 HD goals) provides secondary ballast at 11.8% shooting.

      Neither team generates meaningful high-danger or rebound sequences—both register at 0% on these interior metrics—meaning play lives in perimeter chaos. Defensively, Chicago has Anton Frondell as a soft spot; Vancouver has Victor Mancini in that role. Both weaknesses exist but neither is exploitable enough to break a tight game.

      The model call is correct. This is a flip, and the 54% lean toward Vancouver reflects home ice, not offensive superiority. Take Vancouver if you need the lean, but expect Chicago to hang around until late.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      VAN 54%
      54%
      VAN
      Model favorite
      46%
      54%
      CHI50VAN

      VAN by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.5–2.7 VAN; 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 →VAN
      42.0%44.0%
      46.0%46.0%
      2.172.22
      2.942.81
      1.841.60
      2.412.56
      0.9960.974

      VAN holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.974) 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
      +4 GD · 1d rest
      VAN
      5-5-0
      -6 GD · 1d rest
      0.996
      CHI PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.974
      VAN PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Regression watch
      • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • T. Demko is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • A. Soderblom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Canucks are underwater at -6 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
      CHI
      Expected in goal
      A. Soderblom
      back-to-back.875 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.

      VAN
      Expected in goal
      T. Demko
      back-to-back.862 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.

      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
      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
      Keep going

      Where to next