Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Tue, Dec 2 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at VGK

Golden Knights edge the Blackhawks in a shootout

Final / OTTue, Dec 2
CHIChicago Blackhawks3VGKVegas Golden Knights4
The verdict · coin flip

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

CHI 3 · VGK 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:44 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

Vegas escaped 4–3 in a shootout despite failing to score on 11 high-danger chances—the kind of waste that usually ends in a loss. Chicago dominated high-danger opportunities with equal chances and converted at least one; the underlying numbers barely separated these teams at 4.21–4.13 expected goals.

S. Knight (CHI) made 25 of 28 saves at 0.893 SV%, stopping all 11 high-danger shots he faced and running 1.21 goals above expected. C. Hart (VGK) matched him with 27 of 30 saves at 0.900 SV%, conceding one high-danger chance and finishing 1.13 above expected. Both goalies overperformed by more than a full percentage point—a mutual exhibition of excellence.

Vegas held 48% of shot attempts (28–30 on goal). Chicago's rush attack was lethal—three goals on 29 chances—but the rebounding battle favored Vegas: six opportunities created, one converted, compared to Chicago's three created and zero converted. Vegas couldn't finish high-danger chances; Chicago couldn't finish rebounds.

Shea Theodore's backhander from the slot in the shootout broke the tie these teams had earned through goaltending and defensive structure. Vegas got lucky when it mattered most.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 2
CHI
3
VGK
4

Golden Knights edge the Blackhawks in a shootout

Chances 4.1 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Golden Knights took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
4.13
VGK
4.21
50% of the chances51%

The board read CHI 3, VGK 4. The chances read CHI 4.1, VGK 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
−0.2
goals above expected
VGK4.21 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI4.13 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 00:27VGKI. Barbashev0–1
  2. P1 01:23CHIO. Moore1–1
  3. P2 11:22CHIT. Bertuzzi2–1
  4. P2 17:19VGKB. Hutton2–2
  5. P3 04:45CHIC. Bedard3–2
  6. P3 17:32VGKB. Bowman3–3
  7. SO 00:00VGKP. DorofeyevPP3–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
51 shots
4
Final
96 shots
VGK
45 shots
5
CHI attackVGK attack
CHI VGK Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

51
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIVGK
1 / 11
2.39 xG
High danger
0 / 11
2.35 xG
1 / 13
1.12 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.52 xG
1 / 41
0.62 xG
Low
1 / 34
0.34 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 1 of 11, VGK 0 of 11.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
S. Knight
+1.2
CHI · 25/28
B+
C. Hart
+1.1
VGK · 27/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights edge the Blackhawks in a shootout

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 8–8
  1. 00:27VGKI. Barbashev(B. Bowman, S. Theodore)0–1
  2. 01:23CHIO. Moore(T. Bertuzzi, F. Nazar)1–1
2ndshots 10–9
  1. 11:22CHIT. Bertuzzi2–1
  2. 17:19VGKB. Hutton(M. Stone)2–2
3rdshots 6–9
  1. 04:45CHIC. Bedard(A. Burakovsky, R. Greene)3–2
  2. 17:32VGKB. Bowman(S. Theodore, I. Barbashev)3–3
OTshots 6–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play3–3
    2. 00:00CHIC. Bedardpower play3–3
    3. 00:00VGKS. Theodorepower play3–3

    score reads CHI–VGK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.21
    VGK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.006
    VGK puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    47.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.13Expected goals4.21
    VGK 51% of the chance quality
    30Shots on goal28
    11High-danger chances11
    65All attempts (Corsi)58
    Adjusted for score: CHI 52% · VGK 48%
    Faceoffs · VGK won31%off38%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI1 / 11 · 2.39 xG
    VGK0 / 11 · 2.35 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI1 / 13 · 1.12 xG
    VGK2 / 13 · 1.52 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI1 / 41 · 0.62 xG
    VGK1 / 34 · 0.34 xG

    VGK went 0-for-11 from high danger on 2.35 expected goals — 2.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    3 G · 4.13 xG · -1.1
    VGK
    4 G · 4.21 xG · -0.2
    012345

    CHI finished -1.1 against expected, VGK -0.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    WRIST2/24
    SNAP1/8
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/2
    TIP IN0/3
    DEFLECTED0/3
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/18
    VGK
    WRIST1/23
    SNAP0/6
    SLAP1/4
    BACKHAND1/4
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/17
    CHI
    VGK
    Off the rush
    3 G on 29
    3.17 xG
    1 G on 20
    2.44 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.23 xG
    1 G on 6
    1.13 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-24, VGK 1-for-23. CHI 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
    S. Knight
    CHI · 25/28 · .893
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/112.4+2.4
    Medium2/131.5-0.5
    Low1/340.3-0.7

    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

    C. Hart
    VGK · 27/30 · .900
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/112.4+1.4
    Medium1/131.1+0.1
    Low1/410.6-0.4

    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

    96 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    51 shots
    4
    Final
    96 shots
    VGK
    45 shots
    5
    CHI attackVGK attack
    CHI VGK Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, VGK 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
    S. Theodore
    #27 · D · VGK
    0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 25:17 on ice · +1
    T. Bertuzzi
    #59 · L · CHI
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:20 on ice
    I. Barbashev
    #49 · L · VGK
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:53 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Dec 2
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:58 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

    Vegas carries a commanding edge. The model projects a 2.1-2.9 margin with the Golden Knights at 62% win probability—a straightforward outcome of Vegas controlling 54.0% of expected goals at 5v5 against Chicago's 42.0%. They own Corsi at 52.0%, tilting territorial control firmly in their favor.

    Efficiency amplifies the gap. Vegas runs a 0.983 PDO—cold relative to their shot quality—which means positive regression is likely. Chicago's 0.996 indicates they're punching above variance; that won't persist.

    Vegas's top scorers show the conversion gap. Brandon Saad projects 0.91 xG/60 while posting 3G 6A with 1 HD goal and a 4.1% shooting rate—volume without finish. Tomas Hertl posts 0.88 xG/60 with 5G 17A and 1 HD goal at 4.3%, closer to expectation but still running below what his play warrants. Both should regress upward.

    Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi, who projects 0.85 xG/60 while posting 20G 15A and 7 HD goals at an unsustainable 18.0% shooting rate. Connor Bedard (0.82 xG/60) supplies 17G 27A and 5 HD goals at 11.8% efficiency—genuine offensive talent, but not enough volume to offset Vegas's possession advantage. Bertuzzi's gap between current pace and underlying quality is particularly stark; he's converting chances at nearly double expectation.

    Both teams have defensive vulnerabilities: Chicago's Anton Frondell and Vegas's Rasmus Andersson warrant attention. Neither is a fortress. But Vegas's territorial dominance—52.0% Corsi—dictates tempo and limits Chicago's rhythmic setup.

    The 62% projection understates Vegas's advantage. They carry superior underlying metrics, top-end talent (after regression adjustments), and the possession control that compounds through a full game. Chicago's hot shooting—especially Bertuzzi's unsustainable rate—is their only realistic path. Regression and Vegas control is the expected outcome.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 63%
    62%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    38%
    62%
    CHI50VGK

    VGK by 24 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.1–2.9 VGK; 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 →VGK
    42.0%54.0%
    46.0%52.0%
    2.172.52
    2.942.11
    1.842.12
    2.412.10
    0.9960.983

    VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.983) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CHI
    4-4-2
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    VGK
    4-2-4
    -3 GD · 2d rest
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    2 days rest.885 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    VGK
    Expected in goal
    C. Lindbom
    2 days rest.857 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 GSAx this season

    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
    VGK
    Brandon Saad3G 6A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
    Tomas Hertl5G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page