Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
← Thu, Nov 20 · the slate
Breakdown · SEA at CHI

Kraken hold off the Blackhawks

FinalThu, Nov 20
SEASeattle Kraken3CHIChicago Blackhawks2
The verdict · coin flip

The Kraken won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

SEA 3 · CHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:58 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 3–2, but the Blackhawks held the underlying edge. Chicago generated 2.95 expected goals to Seattle's 2.85—a 51–49 split—yet fell short. They underperformed their xG by 0.95 goals, the gap that decided the game.

J. Daccord's play was the margin—22 of 24 saves, 0.917 SV%, +0.95 vs expected. S. Knight saved 24 of 27 (0.889 SV%), a notch lower when the margin was one goal.

The game's shape reflected both teams' efficiency on the rush. Chicago scored 2 goals on 21 rush chances; Seattle scored 3 on 25. In the slot, neither team converted from the rebound pile—Chicago created 5 rebound opportunities with no finish, Seattle 3. This wasn't sloppiness; it was volume meeting precision unevenly.

The turning point came in the third period: Jaden Schwartz's wrist shot from the doorstep (17:42) pushed Seattle ahead for good.

The high-danger count favored Seattle (6–4), a narrow edge that mattered when rebounds stayed dead. Chicago generated 4; none fell.

Three Stars

  • #62 B. Montour (SEA) — 2A in 21:29
  • #86 T. Teravainen (CHI) — 1G, 1A in 21:26
  • #59 T. Bertuzzi (CHI) — 1G, 1A in 20:50
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 20
SEA
3
CHI
2

Kraken hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 2.9 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Kraken took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
2.85
CHI
2.95
49% of the chances51%

The board read SEA 3, CHI 2. The chances read SEA 2.9, CHI 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
+0.1
goals above expected
SEA2.85 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.95 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
  1. P2 00:43CHIT. Bertuzzi0–1
  2. P2 10:07CHIT. TeravainenPP0–2
  3. P3 05:09SEAT. Kartye1–2
  4. P3 07:13SEAS. Wright2–2
  5. P3 17:42SEAJ. SchwartzPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
39 shots
3
Final
80 shots
CHI
41 shots
2
SEA attackCHI attack
SEA CHI Goal
39
shots · 3 in
41
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEACHI
2 / 6
1.31 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.86 xG
1 / 9
0.94 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.52 xG
0 / 33
0.60 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.58 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Daccord
+0.9
SEA · 22/24
C
S. Knight
−0.1
CHI · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kraken hold off 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 9–7no goals
    2ndshots 6–14
    1. 00:43CHIT. Bertuzzi(T. Teravainen, F. Nazar)0–1
    2. 10:07CHIT. Teravainenpower play(T. Bertuzzi, A. Levshunov)0–2
    3rdshots 12–3
    1. 05:09SEAT. Kartye(O. Fisker Molgaard, B. Montour)1–2
    2. 07:13SEAS. Wright(R. Evans, B. Catton)2–2
    3. 17:42SEAJ. Schwartzpower play(B. Montour, M. Marchment)3–2

    score reads SEA–CHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.85
    SEA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.023
    SEA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.5%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.85Expected goals2.95
    CHI 51% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal24
    6High-danger chances4
    48All attempts (Corsi)51
    Adjusted for score: SEA 51% · CHI 49%
    Faceoffs · CHI won47%off50%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SEA2 / 6 · 1.31 xG
    CHI0 / 4 · 0.86 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SEA1 / 9 · 0.94 xG
    CHI2 / 13 · 1.52 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SEA0 / 33 · 0.60 xG
    CHI0 / 34 · 0.58 xG

    CHI went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.86 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SEA
    3 G · 2.85 xG · +0.1
    CHI
    2 G · 2.95 xG · -0.9
    01234

    SEA finished +0.1 against expected, CHI -0.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    SEA
    WRIST2/25
    SLAP0/5
    SNAP0/2
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED1/2
    OTHER0/9
    CHI
    WRIST1/22
    SLAP0/6
    SNAP1/5
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/10
    SEA
    CHI
    Off the rush
    3 G on 25
    2.10 xG
    2 G on 21
    2.09 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.49 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.43 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 2-for-25, CHI 1-for-22. SEA scored 3 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
    J. Daccord
    SEA · 22/24 · .917
    +0.9
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium2/131.5-0.5
    Low0/340.6+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

    S. Knight
    CHI · 24/27 · .889
    -0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.3-0.7
    Medium1/90.9-0.1
    Low0/330.6+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

    80 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SEA
    39 shots
    3
    Final
    80 shots
    CHI
    41 shots
    2
    SEA attackCHI attack
    SEA CHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA left, CHI 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
    B. Montour
    #62 · D · SEA
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 21:29 on ice · +1
    T. Teravainen
    #86 · C · CHI
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:26 on ice · +1
    T. Bertuzzi
    #59 · L · CHI
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:50 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Nov 20
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:56 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 2.5–2.5 stalemate with the Kraken at 51% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Seattle owns the underlying play. The Kraken generate 46.0% of five-on-five expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%, a tangible edge in shot quality that favors the visitors. Yet possession metrics tighten the race: Seattle's 45.0% Corsi lags Chicago's 46.0%, suggesting near-parity in shot volume. The teams are evenly balanced on sheer attack volume.

    PDO splits the difference: the Kraken sit at 1.011 (running hotter than sustainable), while the Blackhawks check in at 0.996 (slightly unlucky). The gap is marginal but works against Seattle's preseason narrative.

    Both goaltenders land on back-to-backs. A. Soderblom and J. Daccord could see backups inserted or emerge fatigued. That variance alone amplifies uncertainty in a toss-up.

    Offensively, Seattle's Shane Wright (0.77 xG/60, 8G 10A, 4 HD goals, 10.4% shooting) and Berkly Catton (0.68 xG/60, 6G 8A, 5 HD goals, 8.8% shooting) anchor a competent but unremarkable group. Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi (0.85 xG/60, 20G 15A, 7 HD goals, 18.0% shooting) and Connor Bedard (0.82 xG/60, 17G 27A, 5 HD goals, 11.8% shooting). Bertuzzi's 18.0% shooting rate and Bedard's 27-assist pace both suggest unsustainable production, yet they represent an offensive ceiling the Kraken lack.

    Both teams score 0% of their goals from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds—a sign of either defensive discipline or systematic inefficiency in converting second opportunities. Either way, expect tight checking and few loose pucks.

    The defensive liabilities are identifiable: Chandler Stephenson for Seattle, Anton Frondell for Chicago. The team that successfully targets their opponent's weakness owns an edge the model cannot quantify—execution does.

    The underlying metrics favor Seattle slightly, but Chicago's star power and goaltending variance create genuine alternate outcomes. When process is this close, execution becomes everything.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    SEA 51%
    51%
    SEA
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    SEA50CHI

    SEA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SEA 2.5–2.5 CHI; 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
    SEA← edge
    edge →CHI
    46.0%42.0%
    45.0%46.0%
    2.132.17
    2.512.94
    1.871.84
    1.952.41
    1.0110.996

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    SEA
    4-3-3
    -3 GD · 1d rest
    CHI
    6-2-2
    +12 GD · 1d rest
    1.011
    SEA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.996
    CHI 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%.
    • A. Soderblom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Daccord is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    SEA
    Expected in goal
    J. Daccord
    back-to-back.885 last start
    Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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.

    CHI
    Expected in goal
    A. Soderblom
    back-to-back.905 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.

    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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page