Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Sat, Dec 13 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at CHI

Red Wings shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

FinalSat, Dec 13
DETDetroit Red Wings4CHIChicago Blackhawks0
The verdict · earned

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

DET 4 · CHI 0
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:16 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

Chicago accumulated 52% of shot attempts and still lost 4-0, a disconnect that vanishes when you examine what those attempts actually meant. The Red Wings converted higher-quality chances into goals; the Blackhawks wasted theirs into empty space.

Expected goals told the real story: Detroit 3.43, Chicago 2.61. The gap stemmed from shot quality. Detroit averaged 0.073 xG per attempt; Chicago managed only 0.039. On the rush, Detroit finished ruthlessly—two goals on 26 chances. Chicago's high-danger opportunities split 2–6 in Detroit's favor.

Chicago underperformed its xG by 2.61 goals, meaning the team squandered its looks. J. Gibson, Detroit's goalie, stopped 2.61 goals above expected, posting a perfect 1.000 save percentage on 26 shots. A. Soderblom saved at 0.870 on 23 attempts.

The game's inflection point came in the third period when A. DeBrincat's wrist shot from the wing (P3, 16:14) extended Detroit's lead. That goal exemplified the night: when Detroit got chances, it finished them. Chicago didn't.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 13
DET
4
CHI
0

Red Wings shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

Chances 3.4 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
3.43
CHI
2.61
57% of the chances43%

The board read DET 4, CHI 0. The chances read DET 3.4, CHI 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+0.6
goals above expected
DET3.43 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.61 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 2.6 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. P1 00:55DETA. DeBrincat1–0
  2. P1 04:35DETP. Kane2–0
  3. P2 14:23DETE. Finnie3–0
  4. P3 16:14DETA. DeBrincatEN4–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
34 shots
4
Final
78 shots
CHI
44 shots
0
DET attackCHI attack
DET CHI Goal
34
shots · 4 in
44
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETCHI
2 / 6
1.59 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.41 xG
2 / 12
1.49 xG
Medium
0 / 18
1.58 xG
0 / 29
0.34 xG
Low
0 / 47
0.62 xG

The Red Wings buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Gibson
+2.6
DET · 26/26
B
A. Soderblom
+0.4
CHI · 20/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

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 10–8
  1. 00:55DETA. DeBrincat(A. Copp, P. Kane)1–0
  2. 04:35DETP. Kane(A. DeBrincat)2–0
2ndshots 10–6
  1. 14:23DETE. Finnie(L. Raymond, A. Sandin-Pellikka)3–0
3rdshots 4–12
  1. 16:14DETA. DeBrincatempty net4–0

score reads DET–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.43
DET chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.085
DET puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.43Expected goals2.61
DET 57% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal26
6High-danger chances2
47All attempts (Corsi)67
Adjusted for score: DET 34% · CHI 66%
Faceoffs · CHI won65%off50%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DET2 / 6 · 1.59 xG
CHI0 / 2 · 0.41 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DET2 / 12 · 1.49 xG
CHI0 / 18 · 1.58 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DET0 / 29 · 0.34 xG
CHI0 / 47 · 0.62 xG

CHI went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 1.58 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
4 G · 3.43 xG · +0.6
CHI
0 G · 2.61 xG · -2.6
012345

DET finished +0.6 against expected, CHI -2.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DET
WRIST2/18
SNAP0/3
TIP IN1/5
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND1/5
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/13
CHI
WRIST0/22
SNAP0/8
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/23
DET
CHI
Off the rush
2 G on 26
2.61 xG
0 G on 29
1.93 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.18 xG
0 G on 2
0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-18, CHI 0-for-22. DET 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
J. Gibson
DET · 26/26 · 1.000
+2.6
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium0/181.6+1.6
Low0/470.6+0.6

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 · 20/23 · .870
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.6-0.4
Medium2/121.5-0.5
Low0/290.3+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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
34 shots
4
Final
78 shots
CHI
44 shots
0
DET attackCHI attack
DET CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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
A. DeBrincat
#93 · R · DET
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:43 on ice · +3
P. Kane
#88 · R · DET
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 17:59 on ice · +3
L. Raymond
#23 · L · DET
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:49 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 13
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:15 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 models project a 2.7–2.5 DET win with the Red Wings at 54% probability. This is pick'em territory: neither team has a meaningful edge.

That edge the models are finding lives in underlying play. Detroit's 49.0% 5v5 expected goals rate crushes Chicago's 42.0%, and they also lead 49.0% to 46.0% in Corsi. The gap is real, measurable, and the kind of volume advantage that usually predicts results.

But Chicago isn't free. The Blackhawks own a 0.996 PDO—meaning their luck has been pristine at even strength—while Detroit sits at 0.985. That's not huge, but it's the kind of regression risk that can swing a tight game. Both teams have also failed to convert high-danger and rebound chances. DET and CHI have each recorded 0% of their goals from these situations, a sign that when the moment comes to finish, execution falters.

On talent, Detroit leans on Alex DeBrincat, who's humming at 0.88 xG/60 with 17 goals and 28 assists. His 2 high-danger goals hint at a lethal nose for the net, even if his 9.0% shooting could regress. Marco Kasper sits just below at 0.81 xG/60, 7 goals and 8 assists—fewer points but a meaningful secondary threat, and his 6.1% shooting suggests upside.

Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi's 20 goals and 7 high-danger goals reveal a finisher, not just a volume player. At 18.0% shooting, he's running hot. Bedard carries 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals, 27 assists, and 5 high-danger goals. His 11.8% shooting is sustainable.

The fragility for Detroit lies with Axel Sandin-Pellikka on the back end. For Chicago, Anton Frondell carries defensive risk. In a coin flip, one mistake might be the game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 54%
54%
DET
Model favorite
54%
46%
DET50CHI

DET by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 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
DET← edge
edge →CHI
49.0%42.0%
49.0%46.0%
2.382.17
2.502.94
1.731.84
2.072.41
0.9850.996

DET holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
DET
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
CHI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.985
DET 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 Red Wings own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Red Wings own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
DET
Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
Marco Kasper7G 8A
0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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

Back to the front page