Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
Breakdown · OTT at STL

Blues hold off the Senators

The verdict · coin flip

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

OTT 3 · STL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:57 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 St. Louis Blues escaped Ottawa with a 4-3 win despite conceding a 7-3 high-danger chance disadvantage. Expected goals split 3.51 to 3.68, marginal—the underlying play was nearly even, yet the Blues scored more.

J. Binnington's goaltending was decisive. He stopped 25 of 28 shots (0.893 SV%) and outperformed his expected save percentage by +0.68 goals. L. Meriläinen saved 27 of 31 (0.871 SV%), slightly below par. That margin—roughly two-thirds of a goal—tilted the outcome.

The Blues controlled possession at 52% shot attempts (31-28 on goal). Both teams converted 2 rush chances off 23 and 22 attempts respectively. St. Louis generated 6 rebound opportunities and converted 2; Ottawa created 7 and converted 1. The difference came down to execution in tight moments.

Matthew Kessel's backhander from the doorstep (P3, 09:19) was the turning point.

Three Stars:

  • #85 J. Sanderson (OTT) — 1A in 27:18
  • #6 P. Broberg (STL) — 1A in 24:53
  • #12 S. Pinto (OTT) — 1G in 20:50
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 28
OTT
3
STL
4

Blues hold off the Senators

Chances 3.7 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blues took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.68
STL
3.51
51% of the chances49%

The board read OTT 3, STL 4. The chances read OTT 3.7, STL 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
+0.5
goals above expected
STL3.51 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.68 expected · 3 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 07:59STLO. Sundqvist0–1
  2. P2 10:11OTTS. Pinto1–1
  3. P2 18:26OTTF. Zetterlund2–1
  4. P3 02:01STLJ. Kyrou2–2
  5. P3 05:33STLP. Buchnevich2–3
  6. P3 07:31OTTD. Perron3–3
  7. P3 09:19STLM. Kessel3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
40 shots
3
Final
82 shots
STL
42 shots
4
OTT attackSTL attack
OTT STL Goal
40
shots · 3 in
42
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTSTL
2 / 7
1.52 xG
High danger
2 / 3
0.74 xG
1 / 14
1.67 xG
Medium
2 / 17
2.19 xG
0 / 37
0.49 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.58 xG

The Blues buried 2 of 3 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
J. Binnington
+0.7
STL · 25/28
D
L. Meriläinen
−0.5
OTT · 27/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues hold off the Senators

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 5–7no goals
    2ndshots 9–11
    1. 07:59STLO. Sundqvist(M. Joseph, N. Walker)0–1
    2. 10:11OTTS. Pinto(N. Matinpalo, M. Amadio)1–1
    3. 18:26OTTF. Zetterlund(J. Sanderson, B. Tkachuk)2–1
    3rdshots 14–13
    1. 02:01STLJ. Kyrou(J. Neighbours, R. Thomas)2–2
    2. 05:33STLP. Buchnevich(B. Schenn, P. Broberg)2–3
    3. 07:31OTTD. Perron3–3
    4. 09:19STLM. Kessel(D. Holloway, P. Suter)3–4

    score reads OTT–STL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.51
    STL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.5
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.015
    STL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    50.8%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.68Expected goals3.51
    OTT 51% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal31
    7High-danger chances3
    58All attempts (Corsi)60
    Adjusted for score: OTT 50% · STL 50%
    Faceoffs · STL won59%off44%neu41%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT2 / 7 · 1.52 xG
    STL2 / 3 · 0.74 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT1 / 14 · 1.67 xG
    STL2 / 17 · 2.19 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT0 / 37 · 0.49 xG
    STL0 / 40 · 0.58 xG

    STL went 2-for-3 from high danger on 0.74 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    3 G · 3.68 xG · -0.7
    STL
    4 G · 3.51 xG · +0.5
    012345

    OTT finished -0.7 against expected, STL +0.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    WRIST2/25
    SNAP0/6
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND1/1
    SLAP0/3
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/18
    STL
    WRIST1/21
    SNAP1/10
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND2/5
    SLAP0/1
    BAT0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/18
    OTT
    STL
    Off the rush
    2 G on 22
    2.25 xG
    2 G on 23
    2.08 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 7
    1.07 xG
    2 G on 6
    1.04 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 2-for-25, STL 1-for-21. OTT 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
    L. Meriläinen
    OTT · 27/31 · .871
    -0.5
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/30.7-1.3
    Medium2/172.2+0.2
    Low0/400.6+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

    J. Binnington
    STL · 25/28 · .893
    +0.7
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/71.5-0.5
    Medium1/141.7+0.7
    Low0/370.5+0.5

    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

    82 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    40 shots
    3
    Final
    82 shots
    STL
    42 shots
    4
    OTT attackSTL attack
    OTT STL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 27:18 on ice · -1
    P. Broberg
    #6 · D · STL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:53 on ice · +1
    S. Pinto
    #12 · C · OTT
    1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 20:50 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Nov 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:56 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 this as a 2.5–2.3 game favoring Ottawa, with the Senators at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as competitive hockey allows.

    The Senators own the underlying play. At 5v5, Ottawa generates 56.0% of shot quality while holding St. Louis to 49.0%—a margin that compounds over sixty minutes. Corsi tells the same story: 53.0% for the Senators against 48.0% for the Blues. When one team commands both shot quality and territorial control, the outcome usually follows.

    But St. Louis isn't powerless. The Blues run a PDO of 1.000, converting chances at exactly the rate the model expects, while Ottawa sits at 0.993—a small cool streak. In a single game, that variance can matter.

    Goaltending adds uncertainty. J. Binnington operates on the back-to-back—watch for a backup start or a tired starter. The same applies to L. Ullmark. Fatigue or a platoon decision could swing the balance.

    The forward matchups define the ceiling. Brady Tkachuk drives Ottawa's engine at 1.19 xG/60 with 11 goals, 20 assists, and 2 high-danger goals, though his 7.5% shooting rate leaves upside. Dylan Cozens operates at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals, 15 assists, and 1 high-danger goal; at 9.5% shooting, he's running hot. St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud at 0.86 xG/60 (15 goals, 22 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway at 0.82 xG/60 (13 goals, 24 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 10.8% shooting).

    Both teams show concerning trends at the margins. Each posts 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, meaning neither has translated volume into secondary chances. Defensively, Nick Jensen represents Ottawa's weak link, while Jimmy Snuggerud is St. Louis's.

    The underlying metrics favor Ottawa without qualification. The Senators control both shot quality and territory. But their 53% win probability isn't conviction; it's acknowledgment of how thin this margin is. St. Louis owns the quality-of-finish argument: the Blues convert at par while the Senators run cool. A goalie duel or back-to-back fatigue could flip the script.

    This is a game where structure points one direction and variance refuses to be ruled out. Ottawa should win, but St. Louis's close enough to punch through. The model agrees—barely.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 53%
    53%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    OTT50STL

    OTT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.5–2.3 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
    OTT← edge
    edge →STL
    56.0%49.0%
    53.0%48.0%
    2.662.34
    2.122.40
    2.182.00
    1.992.12
    0.9931.000

    OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.000) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    OTT
    6-2-2
    +4 GD · 1d rest
    STL
    3-2-5
    -4 GD · 1d rest
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • L. Ullmark 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
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Ullmark
    back-to-back.914 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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.

    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Binnington
    back-to-back.897 last start
    Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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