Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater

Breakdown · STL at MTL

Blues hold off the Canadiens

FinalSun, Dec 7

STLSt. Louis Blues4 MTLMontreal Canadiens3

The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.80–3.33 and won anyway.

STL 4 · MTL 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:29 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 Canadiens did everything right except win. They held 59% of shot attempts and commanded the underlying metrics with 3.33 expected goals to St. Louis's 2.80, yet lost 4-3. The Blues' advantage lay in efficiency: they generated 0.076 expected goals per shot against Montreal's 0.058, enough to decide a close game.

St. Louis won through rush conversion. They scored four goals on 22 rush chances while Montreal managed two on 30—a gap that rewards better execution. B. Schenn buried two goals and an assist in just 14:54, a scorching output in spare ice time. D. Holloway added a goal and two assists in 19:16, setting the Blues' pace.

Montreal's night collapsed in goal. J. Dobes gave up 1.2 goals more than expected, the kind of shortfall that erases a team's structural dominance. J. Binnington, meanwhile, posted a 0.885 save percentage and kept St. Louis afloat through a night where the Canadiens controlled the puck.

N. Dobson's slap shot from the wing at 16:15 of the third pulled Montreal within one, though the deficit was already insurmountable. High-danger chances split 6–5 in Montreal's favor—a final reminder that superior play without finishing is just a stat line.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 7

STL

MTL

Blues hold off the Canadiens

Chances 2.8 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

2.80

MTL

3.33

46% of the chances54%

The board read STL 4, MTL 3. The chances read STL 2.8, MTL 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

STL

+1.2

goals above expected

STL2.80 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

MTL3.33 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

P1 08:57STLB. SchennPP1–0
P1 12:20MTLL. Hutson1–1
P1 19:03MTLC. Caufield1–2
P2 00:26STLD. Holloway2–2
P2 01:05STLP. Buchnevich3–2
P3 10:24STLB. Schenn4–2
P3 16:15MTLN. DobsonPP4–3

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

STL

28 shots

Final

65 shots

MTL

37 shots

STL MTL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLMTL

1 / 5

1.41 xG

High danger

1 / 6

1.73 xG

3 / 11

1.09 xG

Medium

1 / 12

1.08 xG

0 / 21

0.29 xG

Low

1 / 39

0.51 xG

High-danger looks: STL 1 of 5, MTL 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

J. Binnington

+0.3

STL · 23/26

D-

J. Dobes

−1.2

MTL · 14/18

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blues hold off the Canadiens

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 4–11

08:57STLB. Schennpower play(C. Fowler, D. Holloway)1–0
12:20MTLL. Hutson(Z. Bolduc, J. Davidson)1–1
19:03MTLC. Caufield(N. Suzuki, N. Dobson)1–2

2ndshots 6–7

00:26STLD. Holloway(B. Schenn, C. Parayko)2–2
01:05STLP. Buchnevich(R. Thomas, J. Faulk)3–2

3rdshots 8–8

10:24STLB. Schenn(D. Holloway, M. Joseph)4–2
16:15MTLN. Dobsonpower play(M. Matheson, I. Demidov)4–3

score reads STL–MTL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.80

STL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.056

STL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

39.4%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.80Expected goals3.33

MTL 54% of the chance quality

18Shots on goal26

5High-danger chances6

37All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: STL 36% · MTL 64%

Faceoffs · MTL won47%off50%neu29%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL1 / 5 · 1.41 xG

MTL1 / 6 · 1.73 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL3 / 11 · 1.09 xG

MTL1 / 12 · 1.08 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL0 / 21 · 0.29 xG

MTL1 / 39 · 0.51 xG

STL went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.09 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

4 G · 2.80 xG · +1.2

MTL

3 G · 3.33 xG · -0.3

012345

STL finished +1.2 against expected, MTL -0.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

SNAP3/21

BACKHAND1/3

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/1

WRIST0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/9

MTL

SNAP1/24

BACKHAND1/2

SLAP1/4

TIP IN0/4

WRIST0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/20

STL

MTL

Off the rush

4 G on 22

2.62 xG

2 G on 30

2.91 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 1

0.10 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 3-for-21, MTL 1-for-24. STL 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. Binnington

STL · 23/26 · .885

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.7+0.7

Medium1/121.1+0.1

Low1/390.5-0.5

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

J. Dobes

MTL · 14/18 · .778

-1.2

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.4+0.4

Medium3/111.1-1.9

Low0/210.3+0.3

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

65 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

28 shots

Final

65 shots

MTL

37 shots

STL MTL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, MTL 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

D. Holloway

#81 · L · STL

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:16 on ice · +1

B. Schenn

#10 · C · STL

2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 14:54 on ice · +1

N. Dobson

#53 · D · MTL

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:56 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Dec 7

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:22 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

This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects a 2.5–2.5 game with Montreal favored at 51% win probability—statistically indistinguishable from a coin flip.

Both teams are underwater right now. St. Louis has minus-10 goal differential over its last 10 games; Montreal sits at minus-13. Neither squad has momentum, so the game figures to be decided by which underlying advantage materializes.

The 5v5 metrics show almost perfect parity. St. Louis owns 49.0% expected goals and 48.0% Corsi; Montreal counters with 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi. One leads in shot quality by one percentage point; the other leads in volume by one percentage point. The structural advantage is negligible.

Montreal's PDO of 1.018 is the red flag—the Canadiens are running hot on goal luck and regression is incoming. St. Louis sits at 1.000, meaning their actual results align with underlying talent. That matters in a tight game.

Players to Watch

Jimmy Snuggerud (STL) drives 0.86 expected goals per 60 minutes with 15 goals and 22 assists, including two high-danger goals. His 11.9% shooting rate suggests he's converting at a sustainable clip. Dylan Holloway (STL) adds 0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, and 24 assists with one high-danger goal, though his 10.8% shooting leaves room for variance.

Cole Caufield (MTL) is the most dangerous player on the ice—0.97 xG/60, 33 goals, and 16 assists on a 20.0% shooting rate, backed by one high-danger goal. Oliver Kapanen (MTL) posts 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals, 12 assists, and a team-leading four high-danger goals.

St. Louis's underlying metrics should hold up better than Montreal's unsustainable pace. The Canadiens are due for regression; the Blues are living their talent.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MTL 51%

51%

MTL

Model favorite

49%

51%

STL50MTL

MTL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.5–2.5 MTL; 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 →MTL

49.0%48.0%

48.0%49.0%

2.342.41

2.402.62

2.002.24

2.121.96

1.0001.018

MTL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 1.018) says MTL 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 · 2d rest

MTL

4-5-1

-13 GD · 3d rest

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.018

MTL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Canadiens are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
The Blues are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

2 days rest.815 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL

Expected in goal

J. Dobes

3 days rest.938 last start

Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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

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

MTL

Cole Caufield33G 16A

0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh

Oliver Kapanen19G 12A

0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page