Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
Breakdown · CHI at MTL

Canadiens run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 1 · MTL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:52 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

S. Knight's elite goaltending looked like it might steal the game: 90% SV% on high-danger chances and +3.0 goals above expected. Montreal won 4-1 anyway because they controlled every underlying metric—70% of shot attempts (35–15), 66% of expected goals (6.02–3.04), and 0.093 xG per shot versus Chicago's 0.065.

The Canadiens generated 10 high-danger chances to Chicago's 5. Both teams massively underperformed their xG—Montreal by 2.02 goals, Chicago by 2.04—but Montreal's quality advantage meant they scored through it anyway. Chicago managed 0/5 on high-danger looks. J. Dobes (14/15, 0.933 SV%) overperformed too, but he played behind a relentless attack.

Nick Suzuki's snap shot from the circles (16:29, P3) was the turning point. L. Hutson (3A, 26:19) orchestrated the offensive pressure; Z. Bolduc (2G, 16:23) provided the finishing.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 18
CHI
1
MTL
4

Canadiens run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.0 – 6.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
3.04
MTL
6.02
34% of the chances66%

The board read CHI 1, MTL 4. The chances read CHI 3.0, MTL 6.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
−2.0
goals above expected
MTL6.02 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI3.04 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 2.0 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 07:27CHIF. Nazar1–0
  2. P1 14:23MTLZ. Bolduc1–1
  3. P3 00:20MTLZ. Bolduc1–2
  4. P3 10:00MTLN. Dobson1–3
  5. P3 16:29MTLN. SuzukiEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
33 shots
1
Final
87 shots
MTL
54 shots
4
CHI attackMTL attack
CHI MTL Goal
33
shots · 1 in
54
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIMTL
0 / 5
1.23 xG
High danger
1 / 10
3.50 xG
1 / 13
1.43 xG
Medium
3 / 18
1.90 xG
0 / 29
0.38 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.62 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Knight
+3.0
CHI · 31/34
A
J. Dobes
+2.0
MTL · 14/15
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens run the Blackhawks 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 4–7
  1. 07:27CHIF. Nazar(M. Grzelcyk, A. Burakovsky)1–0
  2. 14:23MTLZ. Bolduc(C. Caufield, L. Hutson)1–1
2ndshots 6–16no goals
    3rdshots 5–12
    1. 00:20MTLZ. Bolduc(L. Hutson, N. Suzuki)1–2
    2. 10:00MTLN. Dobson(I. Demidov, L. Hutson)1–3
    3. 16:29MTLN. Suzukiempty net1–4

    score reads CHI–MTL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    6.02
    MTL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.0
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.040
    MTL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    58.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.04Expected goals6.02
    MTL 66% of the chance quality
    15Shots on goal35
    5High-danger chances10
    47All attempts (Corsi)65
    Adjusted for score: CHI 44% · MTL 56%
    Faceoffs · MTL won57%off77%neu63%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI0 / 5 · 1.23 xG
    MTL1 / 10 · 3.50 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI1 / 13 · 1.43 xG
    MTL3 / 18 · 1.90 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI0 / 29 · 0.38 xG
    MTL0 / 37 · 0.62 xG

    MTL went 1-for-10 from high danger on 3.50 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    1 G · 3.04 xG · -2.0
    MTL
    4 G · 6.02 xG · -2.0
    01234567

    CHI finished -2.0 against expected, MTL -2.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    SNAP0/21
    TIP IN1/3
    SLAP0/3
    WRIST0/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/14
    MTL
    SNAP2/36
    TIP IN1/6
    SLAP0/5
    WRIST0/3
    BACKHAND1/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/11
    CHI
    MTL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 24
    2.54 xG
    1 G on 31
    3.27 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.43 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.56 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 0-for-21, MTL 2-for-36.

    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 · 31/34 · .912
    +3.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/103.5+2.5
    Medium3/181.9-1.1
    Low0/370.6+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

    J. Dobes
    MTL · 14/15 · .933
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium1/131.4+0.4
    Low0/290.4+0.4

    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

    87 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    33 shots
    1
    Final
    87 shots
    MTL
    54 shots
    4
    CHI attackMTL attack
    CHI MTL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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
    L. Hutson
    #48 · D · MTL
    0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 26:19 on ice · +3
    N. Suzuki
    #14 · C · MTL
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:23 on ice · +3
    Z. Bolduc
    #76 · R · MTL
    2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 16:23 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Dec 18
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:50 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 CHI 2.4–2.8 MTL game with Montreal at 57% win probability. That lean reflects clear underlying dominance: the Canadiens control play across multiple metrics.

    Montreal's advantage is visible. At even strength, the Canadiens post 48.0% expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%, while Corsi favors them 49.0% to 46.0%. Both readings point the same direction. These aren't overwhelming margins, but they compound across 60 minutes.

    The catch lives in PDO. Montreal's 1.018 is hot. Chicago's 0.996 is cold. The Canadiens have squeezed more actual goals from their chances than underlying play should produce, a gap that regression typically closes. Whether that gap closes tonight or later is the operative question.

    Cole Caufield drives Montreal's offense at 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes and carries 33 goals on the season. That production exceeds his xG/60, mixing skill and variance. Oliver Kapanen (0.83 xG/60, 19 goals) provides secondary offense but trails Caufield in volume.

    Chicago's attack depends on Tyler Bertuzzi (0.85 xG/60, 20 goals) and Connor Bedard. Bedard's profile is interesting: 0.82 xG/60 with 27 assists speaks to creation ability, but his 11.8% shooting rate is conspicuously low. That either signals underperformance from injury or genuine regression from stronger early-season shooting.

    The strategic question is whether Montreal's PDO edge persists or collapses. The xG numbers suggest Montreal has earned shots; the PDO says they've converted at an unsustainable rate. Caufield's 20.0% shooting carries similar regression risk. Chicago's 18.0% for Bertuzzi and 11.8% for Bedard suggest underperformance, meaning they're likelier to finish closer to their true talent level.

    Montreal should win this matchup on play quality. But the PDO gap creates real variance. Take the Canadiens, but factor in that luck regresses. Chicago gets a win probability discount despite relatively stable underlying play—a team executing to their model projection, not a team destined to lose.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    MTL 57%
    57%
    MTL
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    CHI50MTL

    MTL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.4–2.8 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
    CHI← edge
    edge →MTL
    42.0%48.0%
    46.0%49.0%
    2.172.41
    2.942.62
    1.842.24
    2.411.96
    0.9961.018

    MTL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    CHI
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    MTL
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.018
    MTL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Canadiens own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Canadiens own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    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
    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