Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
← Sat, Nov 8 · the slate
Breakdown · SEA at STL

Kraken steal one from the Blues against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Nov 8
SEASeattle Kraken4STLSt. Louis Blues3
The verdict · stolen

The Kraken stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.23–3.79 and won anyway.

SEA 4 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:08 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 4–3 in overtime despite losing the expected-goals battle 3.79–2.23. St. Louis owned 63% of expected goals at 5v5, claimed 39% of shot attempts (19–30), and won the high-danger-chance count 4–3. They lost anyway. Goaltending told the tale.

P. Grubauer exceeded expectations by 0.79 goals on a 0.842 SV%. J. Hofer came up 1.8 goals short. Seattle's power play did the damage: 2 goals on 10 shots (0.46 xG). The Kraken overperformed their xG by 1.77. Shane Wright's wrist shot from the slot at 01:57 of overtime won it.

The Blues generated dangerous chances off the rush—2 goals on 20 opportunities—and controlled large stretches of the game. But St. Louis couldn't convert. Seattle did. The xG tells you one story; the scoreboard tells another.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 8
SEA
4
STL
3

Kraken steal one from the Blues against the run of play

Chances 2.2 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
2.23
STL
3.79
37% of the chances63%

The board read SEA 4, STL 3. The chances read SEA 2.2, STL 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
+1.8
goals above expected
SEA2.23 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.79 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kraken scored 1.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:30STLD. Holloway0–1
  2. P1 09:40STLD. DvorskyPP0–2
  3. P2 08:28SEAR. Evans1–2
  4. P2 15:25SEAE. TolvanenPP2–2
  5. P3 05:10STLJ. Kyrou2–3
  6. P3 19:58SEAC. StephensonPP3–3
  7. OT 01:57SEAS. Wright4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
44 shots
4
Final
75 shots
STL
31 shots
3
SEA attackSTL attack
SEA STL Goal
44
shots · 4 in
31
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEASTL
1 / 3
0.62 xG
High danger
0 / 4
2.09 xG
2 / 10
0.96 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.34 xG
1 / 54
0.64 xG
Low
1 / 26
0.36 xG

The Blues went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
P. Grubauer
+0.8
SEA · 16/19
F
J. Hofer
−1.8
STL · 26/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kraken steal one from the Blues against the run of play

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 9–9
  1. 05:30STLD. Holloway0–1
  2. 09:40STLD. Dvorskypower play(C. Fowler, P. Buchnevich)0–2
2ndshots 15–5
  1. 08:28SEAR. Evans(E. Tolvanen, T. Kartye)1–2
  2. 15:25SEAE. Tolvanenpower play(V. Dunn, J. Eberle)2–2
3rdshots 5–5
  1. 05:10STLJ. Kyrou(P. Broberg, R. Thomas)2–3
  2. 19:58SEAC. Stephensonpower play(M. Beniers, B. Montour)3–3
OTshots 1–0
  1. 01:57SEAS. Wright(E. Tolvanen, R. Evans)4–3

score reads SEA–STL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.23
SEA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.988
SEA puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
61.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.23Expected goals3.79
STL 63% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal19
3High-danger chances4
67All attempts (Corsi)42
Adjusted for score: SEA 65% · STL 35%
Faceoffs · STL won47%off67%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SEA1 / 3 · 0.62 xG
STL0 / 4 · 2.09 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SEA2 / 10 · 0.96 xG
STL2 / 12 · 1.34 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SEA1 / 54 · 0.64 xG
STL1 / 26 · 0.36 xG

STL went 0-for-4 from high danger on 2.09 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SEA
4 G · 2.23 xG · +1.8
STL
3 G · 3.79 xG · -0.8
012345

SEA finished +1.8 against expected, STL -0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SEA
WRIST2/29
SLAP1/7
SNAP1/4
BACKHAND0/4
BAT0/0
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/23
STL
WRIST2/21
SLAP0/4
SNAP1/3
BACKHAND0/0
BAT0/1
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
SEA
STL
Off the rush
1 G on 26
1.53 xG
2 G on 20
2.05 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.40 xG
0 G on 1
0.09 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 2-for-29, STL 2-for-21. STL 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
P. Grubauer
SEA · 16/19 · .842
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/42.1+2.1
Medium2/121.3-0.7
Low1/260.4-0.6

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

J. Hofer
STL · 26/30 · .867
-1.8
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.6-0.4
Medium2/101.0-1.0
Low1/540.6-0.4

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SEA
44 shots
4
Final
75 shots
STL
31 shots
3
SEA attackSTL attack
SEA STL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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
E. Tolvanen
#20 · R · SEA
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 15:17 on ice · +1
R. Evans
#41 · D · SEA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:44 on ice · +1
P. Broberg
#6 · D · STL
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:32 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 8
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:06 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 2.3 to 2.5 goals per team, with St. Louis favored at 55% win probability—about as close to even odds as the NHL gets. This is not a lean; it's a toss.

The underlying metrics explain why. Seattle's season 5v5 numbers reveal a team generating 46.0% expected goals and 45.0% of the Corsi share, both well below parity. St. Louis sits at 49.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi—modest advantages that don't scream dominance. Their PDO of 1.000 tracks expected, while Seattle's 1.011 suggests fortune has played a role. Neither team has established the offensive control or defensive reliability to pull away in a single contest.

The Kraken's scoring depends on Shane Wright and Berkly Catton. Wright carries 0.77 expected goals per 60 minutes, with 8 goals and 10 assists, including 4 high-danger chances converted at a 10.4% shot rate—sustainable but not elite. Catton ranks below at 0.68 xG/60, though his 8.8% shooting on 6 goals and 8 assists suggests he's found dangerous ice. Both players operate within their offensive profiles; neither looms as a difference-maker against competent defense.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud and Dylan Holloway. Snuggerud leads with 0.86 xG/60 and 15 goals, backed by 22 assists and a pristine 11.9% shot rate, yet he's converted just 2 high-danger chances—a sign of volume-driven scoring rather than precision. Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 24 assists, 10.8% shooting) operates similarly, accounting for only 1 high-danger goal. Both thrive on shot volume, not shot quality.

The defensive picture offers little separation. Chandler Stephenson represents Seattle's weak link, while Snuggerud wears the same label for St. Louis—neither commands a matchup. Seattle has converted 0% of high-danger chances into goals and 0% of rebounds, as has St. Louis. These figures are noise this early, not systematic weakness.

If there is a tilting point, it lies in goal. Two evenly matched rosters on paper resolve through goaltending. Whoever performs better between the pipes takes the game. The model doesn't separate them otherwise, and the underlying data confirms it. This one could go either way.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 55%
55%
STL
Model favorite
45%
55%
SEA50STL

STL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.5 STL; 19% 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
SEA← edge
edge →STL
46.0%49.0%
45.0%48.0%
2.132.34
2.512.40
1.872.00
1.952.12
1.0111.000

STL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 1.000) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

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

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
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