Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
Breakdown · NSH at CHI

Predators hold off the Blackhawks

The verdict · earned

The Predators earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

NSH 4 · CHI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:10 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

Nashville's superior shot quality proved decisive in a 4-3 win over Chicago. The Predators controlled 56% of expected goals (4.89–3.89) and held a decisive 8–5 edge in high-danger chances, leaving little doubt about which team dominated play.

The quality gap was the operational story. At 0.082 expected goals per shot, the Predators generated roughly 44% more value per attempt than Chicago's 0.057. This showed up across the game: in rush situations, Nashville converted 4 of 27 chances while Chicago managed only 3 of 29. Even in the high-danger zone, where Chicago's 40% conversion (2 of 5) was efficient, the Predators' 8–5 advantage in those looks proved decisive.

Teuvo Teravainen's wrist shot from the slot (P3, 10:28) was the turning point.

Nashville's margin could have been wider—both teams underperformed their expected goals by 0.89 each—but excellent goaltending from both sides kept the scoreline intact. J. Saros (NSH) stopped 24 of 27 shots (0.889 SV%), outperforming his expected save percentage by 0.89 goals. A. Soderblom (CHI) saved 25 of 29 (0.862 SV%), also beating expectations by the same margin. Both tenders played above the call, preventing what the underlying metrics suggested could have been a wider result.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 28
NSH
4
CHI
3

Predators hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 4.9 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
4.89
CHI
3.89
56% of the chances44%

The board read NSH 4, CHI 3. The chances read NSH 4.9, CHI 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
−0.9
goals above expected
NSH4.89 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI3.89 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. P1 19:10CHIR. Donato0–1
  2. P2 01:46NSHM. Wood1–1
  3. P2 07:18NSHS. Stamkos2–1
  4. P2 15:14CHIR. GreenePP2–2
  5. P2 16:27NSHL. Evangelista3–2
  6. P3 07:15NSHR. O'Reilly4–2
  7. P3 10:28CHIT. Teravainen4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
45 shots
4
Final
92 shots
CHI
47 shots
3
NSH attackCHI attack
NSH CHI Goal
45
shots · 4 in
47
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHCHI
2 / 8
2.50 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.19 xG
1 / 14
1.75 xG
Medium
0 / 19
2.07 xG
1 / 38
0.64 xG
Low
1 / 44
0.63 xG

The Predators buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Saros
+0.9
NSH · 24/27
B+
A. Soderblom
+0.9
CHI · 25/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators 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 10–11
  1. 19:10CHIR. Donato(S. Rinzel, A. Burakovsky)0–1
2ndshots 11–6
  1. 01:46NSHM. Wood(N. Hague)1–1
  2. 07:18NSHS. Stamkos(N. Blankenburg, F. Svechkov)2–1
  3. 15:14CHIR. Greenepower play(O. Moore)2–2
  4. 16:27NSHL. Evangelista(S. Stamkos, R. O'Reilly)3–2
3rdshots 8–10
  1. 07:15NSHR. O'Reilly(L. Evangelista, N. Perbix)4–2
  2. 10:28CHIT. Teravainen(W. Kaiser, F. Nazar)4–3

score reads NSH–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.89
NSH chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.022
NSH puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.89Expected goals3.89
NSH 56% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal27
8High-danger chances5
60All attempts (Corsi)68
Adjusted for score: NSH 44% · CHI 56%
Faceoffs · CHI won29%off41%neu39%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NSH2 / 8 · 2.50 xG
CHI2 / 5 · 1.19 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NSH1 / 14 · 1.75 xG
CHI0 / 19 · 2.07 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NSH1 / 38 · 0.64 xG
CHI1 / 44 · 0.63 xG

CHI went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.07 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NSH
4 G · 4.89 xG · -0.9
CHI
3 G · 3.89 xG · -0.9
0123456

NSH finished -0.9 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
NSH
WRIST3/34
SNAP0/0
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND1/3
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/15
CHI
WRIST1/27
SNAP2/9
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/21
NSH
CHI
Off the rush
4 G on 27
2.92 xG
3 G on 29
3.03 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.31 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 3-for-34, CHI 1-for-27. NSH 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
J. Saros
NSH · 24/27 · .889
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium0/192.1+2.1
Low1/440.6-0.4

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

A. Soderblom
CHI · 25/29 · .862
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.5+0.5
Medium1/141.8+0.8
Low1/380.6-0.4

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NSH
45 shots
4
Final
92 shots
CHI
47 shots
3
NSH attackCHI attack
NSH CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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
R. O'Reilly
#90 · C · NSH
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:04 on ice · +2
L. Evangelista
#77 · R · NSH
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:36 on ice · +3
S. Stamkos
#91 · C · NSH
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:24 on ice · +3
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, 6:08 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 2.7-2.5 game with Nashville at 54% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Chicago has momentum—5-3-2 over their last 10. Nashville, meanwhile, sits at -16 goal differential in the same stretch, suggesting they're not just losing, they're bleeding expected value. Yet the Predators own the underlying play: 49.0% 5v5 expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%, plus 50.0% Corsi that signals territorial control.

The gap between expected and actual performance usually closes. Nashville's xG% advantage suggests they should be outshooting their results, but it hasn't materialized yet into wins. Chicago's recent form masks a secondary advantage in goaltending—both S. Knight and J. Annunen sit on back-to-backs, creating uncertainty about starter availability on either side.

The offensive talent tilts Nashville. Zachary L'Heureux carries 0.85 xG/60 with 4 goals on a 16.0% shooting rate, meaning he's getting quality chances but hasn't sustained a hot hand. Filip Forsberg runs 0.80 xG/60, backed by 23 goals and 13.6% shooting—steadier volume, higher conversion. Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi at 0.85 xG/60 and 20 goals off 18.0% shooting, plus Connor Bedard's 17 goals and 11.8% shooting rate on 0.82 xG/60.

Where Nashville's offense stalls: their high-danger goal rate sits at 0%, as does their rebound-goal rate—they generate looks but don't finish loose play. Jonathan Marchessault represents a defensive leak for the Predators. Chicago mirrors that fragility: 0% on high-danger goals, 0% on rebounds, with Anton Frondell as the defensive weak link.

This game hinges on whether Nashville's expected-goals advantage resolves into goals or whether Chicago's form and goaltending steadiness prevail. The model calls it even. Neither team's fundamentals guarantee a winner.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NSH 54%
54%
NSH
Model favorite
54%
46%
NSH50CHI

NSH by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 2.7–2.5 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
NSH← edge
edge →CHI
49.0%42.0%
50.0%46.0%
2.482.17
2.582.94
1.841.84
2.212.41
0.9920.996

NSH holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NSH
2-6-2
-16 GD · 1d rest
CHI
5-3-2
+5 GD · 1d rest
0.992
NSH 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 Predators own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Predators own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Annunen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Blackhawks are the hotter team by points pace (5-3-2 in their last 10).
  • The Predators are underwater at -16 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NSH
Expected in goal
J. Annunen
back-to-back.903 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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.

CHI
Expected in goal
S. Knight
back-to-back.833 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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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