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

J. Hofer stands tall as the Blues edge the Senators

The verdict · coin flip

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

STL 2 · OTT 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:13 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 Senators controlled this game on the scoreboard's least reliable metric — shot attempts went 68% their way, 42–20 — then lost 2-1 anyway. The underlying expected goals split showed Ottawa's dominance was real but narrow (4.32–4.02 in their favor), and the high-danger chances ran even at 6–6. Where St. Louis stole the game: goaltending and shot quality.

J. Hofer was the difference. He stopped 41 of 42 shots for a 0.976 save percentage, 3.32 goals above expected. That's not a close performance — it's the kind of night that decides close games. L. Ullmark, meanwhile, posted a 0.900 SV%, 2.02 goals above expected. Both goalies outplayed their xG models, but Hofer's margin was decisive.

The Blues understood their disadvantage and played accordingly. They took 20 shots at 0.098 expected goals per shot — translating volume into danger. Ottawa took 42 at 0.054 xG per shot, which means the Senators were generating quantity without quality. The Senators crashed the net effectively (4 rebound chances), but converted none, and finished 3.32 goals below their xG. The Blues underperformed too (2.02 below), but started from a position of efficiency.

Fabian Zetterlund's wrist shot from the slot at 15:39 of the third period stood as the turning point, a clean look that found the back of the net when the Senators had already burned their chance-creation capital.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 6
STL
2
OTT
1

J. Hofer stands tall as the Blues edge the Senators

Chances 4.0 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blues took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
4.02
OTT
4.32
48% of the chances52%

The board read STL 2, OTT 1. The chances read STL 4.0, OTT 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
−2.0
goals above expected
STL4.02 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT4.32 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 3.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 17:36STLJ. Neighbours1–0
  2. P3 00:12STLJ. Neighbours2–0
  3. P3 15:39OTTF. ZetterlundPP2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
31 shots
2
Final
88 shots
OTT
57 shots
1
STL attackOTT attack
STL OTT Goal
31
shots · 2 in
57
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLOTT
2 / 6
2.80 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.49 xG
0 / 6
0.78 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.77 xG
0 / 29
0.45 xG
Low
0 / 59
1.06 xG

The Blues buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Hofer
+3.3
STL · 41/42
A
L. Ullmark
+2.0
OTT · 18/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Hofer stands tall as the Blues edge 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 2–15no goals
    2ndshots 10–10
    1. 17:36STLJ. Neighbours(B. Schenn, P. Suter)1–0
    3rdshots 8–17
    1. 00:12STLJ. Neighbours(P. Buchnevich)2–0
    2. 15:39OTTF. Zetterlundpower play(S. Halliday, C. Giroux)2–1

    score reads STL–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.02
    STL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.0
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.036
    STL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    33.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.02Expected goals4.32
    OTT 52% of the chance quality
    20Shots on goal42
    6High-danger chances6
    41All attempts (Corsi)80
    Adjusted for score: STL 31% · OTT 69%
    Faceoffs · OTT won73%off57%neu22%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    STL2 / 6 · 2.80 xG
    OTT1 / 6 · 1.49 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    STL0 / 6 · 0.78 xG
    OTT0 / 15 · 1.77 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    STL0 / 29 · 0.45 xG
    OTT0 / 59 · 1.06 xG

    OTT went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.77 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    STL
    2 G · 4.02 xG · -2.0
    OTT
    1 G · 4.32 xG · -3.3
    012345

    STL finished -2.0 against expected, OTT -3.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    STL
    WRIST0/18
    SNAP0/8
    TIP IN1/2
    SLAP0/0
    BACKHAND0/2
    BAT1/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/10
    OTT
    WRIST1/37
    SNAP0/8
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/1
    BAT0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/23
    STL
    OTT
    Off the rush
    1 G on 16
    1.10 xG
    1 G on 34
    2.71 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 2
    0.40 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.60 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-18, OTT 1-for-37.

    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. Hofer
    STL · 41/42 · .976
    +3.3
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.5+0.5
    Medium0/151.8+1.8
    Low0/591.1+1.1

    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

    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 18/20 · .900
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/62.8+0.8
    Medium0/60.8+0.8
    Low0/290.5+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

    88 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    STL
    31 shots
    2
    Final
    88 shots
    OTT
    57 shots
    1
    STL attackOTT attack
    STL OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, OTT 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. Neighbours
    #63 · L · STL
    2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 15:15 on ice · +2
    P. Suter
    #22 · C · STL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:47 on ice · +1
    P. Buchnevich
    #89 · L · STL
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 19:44 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 6
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:11 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 57% win probability for Ottawa over a 2.2–2.7 range, backed by a clear edge in territorial control. St. Louis enters with a -10 goal differential over their last ten, which narrows the Blues' margin for error.

    Ottawa owns the underlying play decisively. The Senators generate 56.0% expected goals against 49.0% for the Blues at 5v5, and control Corsi at 53.0% to 48.0%—a territorial tilt favoring the Senators across the board.

    Keep watch on both goaltenders. L. Meriläinen and J. Binnington are both on back-to-backs, which could mean backup appearances or tired starters.

    With both teams even on shooting luck—St. Louis at 1.000 PDO, Ottawa at 0.993—the underlying xG advantage stands as the decisive edge.

    STL

    • Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
    • Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goal, 10.8% shooting

    OTT

    • Brady Tkachuk — 1.19 xG/60, 11G 20A, 2 HD goals, 7.5% shooting
    • Dylan Cozens — 1.00 xG/60, 13G 15A, 1 HD goal, 9.5% shooting
    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 57%
    57%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    STL50OTT

    OTT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.2–2.7 OTT; 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
    STL← edge
    edge →OTT
    49.0%56.0%
    48.0%53.0%
    2.342.66
    2.402.12
    2.002.18
    2.121.99
    1.0000.993

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    STL
    3-4-3
    -10 GD · 1d rest
    OTT
    5-5-0
    -2 GD · 1d rest
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT 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.
    • L. Meriläinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Blues are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Binnington
    back-to-back.815 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.

    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Meriläinen
    back-to-back.889 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.

    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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next