Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
Breakdown · NSH at STL

Predators run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

NSH 5 · STL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:14 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 Predators commanded 62% of 5v5 expected goals (4.18–2.60)—a dominance that would normally predict a narrow victory. Nashville overperformed that xG by 0.82 goals, winning 5-2.

Forsberg's efficiency (3 goals in 16:20) epitomized Nashville's clinical finishing. The Predators converted 2 of 5 high-danger chances (40%) while forcing St. Louis into low-danger looks. Saros made 20 of 22 shots at a 0.909 save percentage, running 0.60 above expected.

The Blues' rush attack threatened to disrupt that control—two goals off 20 chances. But Nashville countered with three rush goals on 27 looks, erasing St. Louis's edge on the rush. Josi (2 assists in 23:41) and O'Reilly (2 assists in 18:45) orchestrated the offense, while Hofer faced 25 shots and allowed 5.

St. Louis was outmatched at evens. Nashville's underlying dominance, combined with their finishing efficiency, made the result inevitable.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 15
NSH
5
STL
2

Predators run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.2 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
4.18
STL
2.60
62% of the chances38%

The board read NSH 5, STL 2. The chances read NSH 4.2, STL 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
+0.8
goals above expected
NSH4.18 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
STL2.60 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
  1. P1 00:27NSHF. Forsberg1–0
  2. P1 10:06STLD. Dvorsky1–1
  3. P2 01:23NSHM. Bunting2–1
  4. P2 05:31NSHF. ForsbergPP3–1
  5. P2 18:45NSHR. Schaefer4–1
  6. P3 08:29STLD. DvorskyPP4–2
  7. P3 16:09NSHF. ForsbergEN5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
42 shots
5
Final
77 shots
STL
35 shots
2
NSH attackSTL attack
NSH STL Goal
42
shots · 5 in
35
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHSTL
2 / 5
1.94 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.04 xG
1 / 14
1.53 xG
Medium
0 / 10
1.09 xG
2 / 34
0.71 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.47 xG

The Predators buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
J. Saros
+0.6
NSH · 20/22
C
J. Hofer
+0.2
STL · 21/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 12–6
  1. 00:27NSHF. Forsberg(R. O'Reilly, B. Skjei)1–0
  2. 10:06STLD. Dvorsky(H. McGing, J. Faulk)1–1
2ndshots 8–6
  1. 01:23NSHM. Bunting(N. Perbix, E. Haula)2–1
  2. 05:31NSHF. Forsbergpower play(S. Stamkos, R. Josi)3–1
  3. 18:45NSHR. Schaefer(R. Josi)4–1
3rdshots 6–10
  1. 08:29STLD. Dvorskypower play(J. Neighbours, P. Buchnevich)4–2
  2. 16:09NSHF. Forsbergempty net(R. O'Reilly)5–2

score reads NSH–STL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.18
NSH chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.048
NSH puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
55.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.18Expected goals2.60
NSH 62% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal22
5High-danger chances4
53All attempts (Corsi)43
Adjusted for score: NSH 50% · STL 50%
Faceoffs · STL won27%off41%neu31%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NSH2 / 5 · 1.94 xG
STL1 / 4 · 1.04 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NSH1 / 14 · 1.53 xG
STL0 / 10 · 1.09 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NSH2 / 34 · 0.71 xG
STL1 / 29 · 0.47 xG

NSH went 2-for-34 from low danger on 0.71 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NSH
5 G · 4.18 xG · +0.8
STL
2 G · 2.60 xG · -0.6
0123456

NSH finished +0.8 against expected, STL -0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NSH
WRIST4/27
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/3
SNAP0/2
WRAP AROUND1/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
STL
WRIST1/21
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/3
SNAP1/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/8
NSH
STL
Off the rush
3 G on 27
2.46 xG
2 G on 20
1.95 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.70 xG
0 G on 3
0.38 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 4-for-27, STL 1-for-21. NSH 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
J. Saros
NSH · 20/22 · .909
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.0+0.0
Medium0/101.1+1.1
Low1/290.5-0.5

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

J. Hofer
STL · 21/25 · .840
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.9-0.1
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low2/340.7-1.3

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NSH
42 shots
5
Final
77 shots
STL
35 shots
2
NSH attackSTL attack
NSH STL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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
F. Forsberg
#9 · L · NSH
3 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 16:20 on ice · +2
R. Josi
#59 · D · NSH
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:41 on ice · +2
R. O'Reilly
#90 · C · NSH
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:45 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 15
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:30 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

St. Louis is favored at 52%, with the model projecting a 2.6–2.4 expected score—margins close enough to a pick'em.

The Blues have limped through their last ten games, sitting at minus-10 in goal differential. That's the kind of stretch that either precedes a snap or deepens a funk; this matchup will tell you which.

The underlying metrics suggest near-parity. Both teams are posted at 49.0% expected goals percentage at 5v5. Nashville holds a slight possession edge (50.0% Corsi) over St. Louis (48.0%), though PDO—a proxy for luck—cuts against Nashville: the Predators sit at 0.992 while the Blues ring in at 1.000, suggesting expected regress and regression, respectively.

The goaltending situation adds a variable: J. Annunen is on a back-to-back, which typically invites a backup start or a tired starter. How Nashville responds to fatigue behind the crease could tilt the game.

On offense, Nashville leans on Zachary L'Heureux and Filip Forsberg. L'Heureux carries 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes, has 4 goals on 1 high-danger chance (16.0% shooting), and is running on fumes from a luck deficit—he's overdue. Forsberg is steadier: 0.80 xG/60 across 23 goals and 17 assists with 4 high-danger chances and a 13.6% shooting rate that suggests real finishing above expectation.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud and Dylan Holloway, both high-volume creators. Snuggerud has authored 15 goals and 22 assists while accumulating 0.86 xG/60 and just 2 high-danger chances—he's relying more on positioning and timing than pure danger. Holloway mirrors the archetype: 0.82 xG/60 across 13 goals, 24 assists, and only 1 high-danger chance, suggesting a player who finds soft areas rather than forcing entry.

Both teams report zero high-danger goal rate and zero rebound goal rate. These shouldn't read as literal zeros; they're either data artifacts or rounding noise. Treat them as such.

St. Louis's defensive vulnerability is Jimmy Snuggerud—an unusual weak link for a forward. Nashville's is Jonathan Marchessault, though the data provides no context on what makes him exposed.

The edge is statistical thinness. With these metrics this tightly clustered and goaltending uncertainty tilting the game, you're picking based on which team's heat-check holds longer or who gets the first break. The model says St. Louis by a tick. The numbers say flip a coin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 52%
52%
STL
Model favorite
48%
52%
NSH50STL

STL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NSH 2.4–2.6 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
NSH← edge
edge →STL
49.0%49.0%
50.0%48.0%
2.482.34
2.582.40
1.842.00
2.212.12
0.9921.000

STL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 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
NSH
6-4-0
+2 GD · 1d rest
STL
5-4-1
-10 GD · 2d rest
0.992
NSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • J. Annunen 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
NSH
Expected in goal
J. Annunen
back-to-back.925 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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.931 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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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