Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater

Breakdown · CHI at STL

Blues hold off the Blackhawks

FinalFri, Dec 12

CHIChicago Blackhawks2 STLSt. Louis Blues3

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 2 · STL 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:09 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

St. Louis controlled this game far more thoroughly than the 3-2 scoreline suggested. They generated expected goals at a 2.79-to-2.05 rate—a 58-to-42 split of 5v5 volume—while attempting fewer shots: 26 to Chicago's 29, or 47%.

Quality separated the teams decisively. St. Louis posted 0.054 xG per shot against Chicago's 0.039. High-danger chances went 3-to-2. Two of St. Louis's 27 rush chances converted, a lethal strike rate from transition.

Goaltending reinforced the control. J. Hofer stopped 27 of 29 shots (0.931 save percentage), while S. Knight posted 23 of 26 (0.885). The gap between them reflected St. Louis's edge in opportunity quality across the night.

Andre Burakovsky's backhander from the doorstep at 14:08 of the third period gave Chicago their moment, but St. Louis held.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 12

CHI

STL

Blues hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 2.0 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

2.05

STL

2.79

42% of the chances58%

The board read CHI 2, STL 3. The chances read CHI 2.0, STL 2.8.

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

Luck check

STL

+0.2

goals above expected

STL2.79 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.05 expected · 2 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 03:41STLL. MaillouxPP0–1
P1 11:48STLM. Luff0–2
P1 15:50CHIW. Kaiser1–2
P2 08:57STLJ. Faulk1–3
P3 14:08CHIA. Burakovsky2–3

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

39 shots

Final

79 shots

STL

40 shots

CHI STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHISTL

1 / 2

0.45 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.67 xG

0 / 8

0.87 xG

Medium

2 / 13

1.44 xG

1 / 42

0.73 xG

Low

1 / 36

0.68 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 1 of 2, STL 0 of 3.

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

In the net

J. Hofer

+0.1

STL · 27/29

S. Knight

−0.2

CHI · 23/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blues 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 6–11

03:41STLL. Maillouxpower play(R. Thomas, J. Neighbours)0–1
11:48STLM. Luff(R. Fabbri, C. Parayko)0–2
15:50CHIW. Kaiser(A. Burakovsky, C. Bedard)1–2

2ndshots 12–9

08:57STLJ. Faulk(T. Tucker, R. Thomas)1–3

3rdshots 11–6

14:08CHIA. Burakovsky(C. Bedard)2–3

score reads CHI–STL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.79

STL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.019

STL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

50.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.05Expected goals2.79

STL 58% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal26

2High-danger chances3

52All attempts (Corsi)52

Adjusted for score: CHI 56% · STL 44%

Faceoffs · STL won52%off71%neu42%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI1 / 2 · 0.45 xG

STL0 / 3 · 0.67 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI0 / 8 · 0.87 xG

STL2 / 13 · 1.44 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI1 / 42 · 0.73 xG

STL1 / 36 · 0.68 xG

CHI went 0-for-8 from medium danger on 0.87 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

2 G · 2.05 xG · -0.1

STL

3 G · 2.79 xG · +0.2

01234

CHI finished -0.1 against expected, STL +0.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

WRIST1/25

SNAP0/5

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND1/2

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/13

STL

WRIST2/20

SNAP1/11

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/12

CHI

STL

Off the rush

1 G on 24

1.28 xG

2 G on 27

2.37 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.26 xG

0 G on 2

0.13 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-25, STL 2-for-20. STL 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

S. Knight

CHI · 23/26 · .885

-0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium2/131.4-0.6

Low1/360.7-0.3

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

J. Hofer

STL · 27/29 · .931

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.5-0.6

Medium0/80.9+0.9

Low1/420.7-0.3

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

39 shots

Final

79 shots

STL

40 shots

CHI STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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

R. Thomas

#18 · C · STL

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:38 on ice · +1

C. Bedard

#98 · C · CHI

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:46 on ice

A. Burakovsky

#28 · L · CHI

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:42 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Dec 12

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:06 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 likes St. Louis here. Project a 2.3-to-2.8-goal Blues win with a 58% probability, rooted entirely in possession dynamics.

The underlying play separates them cleanly. St. Louis owns a 49.0% expected-goals share at 5v5—a five-point advantage over Chicago's 42.0%. The Corsi split is tighter but directional: 48.0% to 46.0% in St. Louis's favor. Both teams have shot at league-average rates this season (PDO of 0.996 for Chicago, 1.000 for St. Louis), so the gap isn't variance—it's process. The Blues are generating better looks and allowing worse ones.

Recent form cuts differently. Chicago is the bigger worry: -16 goal differential over their last 10. St. Louis is only -6, so they're treading water, not sinking. That resilience despite being underwater suggests their process advantage should hold.

One variable: S. Knight handles St. Louis's workload and is on a back-to-back. That means either a backup takes this or Knight plays tired. Watch the goalie announcement.

For Chicago, Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard carry the weight. Bertuzzi has 20 goals and 15 assists with 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes but shoots 18.0%. Bedard owns 17 goals and 27 assists at 0.82 xG/60 with 11.8% conversion. Given the possession forecast, efficiency defines their margin.

St. Louis's wings mirror that generation rate. Jimmy Snuggerud carries 0.86 xG/60 with 15 goals and 22 assists. Dylan Holloway shows 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals and 24 assists. The real edge isn't individual firepower—it's that the Blues' process advantage means both teams will spend more time in St. Louis's offensive zone. Chicago's defensive weak link in Anton Frondell will be tested. St. Louis should control pace and win through volume of looks rather than chance concentration.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 58%

58%

STL

Model favorite

42%

58%

CHI50STL

STL by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.8 STL; 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 →STL

42.0%49.0%

46.0%48.0%

2.172.34

2.942.40

1.842.00

2.412.12

0.9961.000

STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 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

CHI

3-5-2

-16 GD · 1d rest

STL

5-4-1

-6 GD · 2d rest

0.996

CHI 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 Blues own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.

Things to watch

The Blues own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blues are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
The Blackhawks are underwater at -16 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

back-to-back1.000 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.

STL

Expected in goal

J. Hofer

2 days rest.867 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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

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

Back to the front page