Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater

Breakdown · STL at FLA

Blues run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Dec 20

STLSt. Louis Blues6 FLAFlorida Panthers2

The verdict · earned

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

STL 6 · FLA 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:16 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

St. Louis won 6–2 and dominated the underlying play — but the most revealing number is the one that didn't show on the scoreboard. Florida had 48% of shot attempts but generated only 39% of expected goals. The Panthers had volume; the Blues had teeth.

The xG split was 4.69–3.06, a 61–39 advantage to St. Louis. High-danger chances went 8–6 the same way. Florida underperformed its expected goals by 1.06 — a sign that chances came from low-quality areas. St. Louis did the opposite, outscoring its xG by 1.31.

St. Louis executed on multiple fronts. J. Hofer made 27 saves at a 0.931 save percentage, stopping 1.06 goals above expected. The Blues' shot quality was superior — 0.087 expected goals per shot versus Florida's 0.057. They cashed in from locations Florida's offense couldn't reach: two goals came from low-danger spots, the kind a goaltender must have. On the rush, St. Louis was lethal, scoring five goals on 29 chances.

Robert Thomas's wrist shot from the point at 16:28 marked the turning point, setting a tone the Panthers couldn't overcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 20

STL

FLA

Blues run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.7 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

4.69

FLA

3.06

61% of the chances39%

The board read STL 6, FLA 2. The chances read STL 4.7, FLA 3.1.

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

Luck check

STL

+1.3

goals above expected

STL4.69 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA3.06 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 09:59STLJ. Neighbours1–0
P2 01:55STLJ. BerggrenPP2–0
P2 07:35FLAA. Greer2–1
P2 12:45FLAS. ReinhartPP2–2
P2 19:59STLJ. Faulk3–2
P3 12:02STLJ. Neighbours4–2
P3 12:53STLR. Thomas5–2

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

STL

46 shots

Final

84 shots

FLA

38 shots

STL FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLFLA

2 / 8

2.36 xG

High danger

1 / 6

1.30 xG

2 / 14

1.77 xG

Medium

1 / 12

1.24 xG

2 / 32

0.57 xG

Low

0 / 36

0.51 xG

The Blues buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

B+

J. Hofer

+1.1

STL · 27/29

D. Tarasov

−0.3

FLA · 26/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blues run the Panthers 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 7–7

09:59STLJ. Neighbours(C. Fowler, O. Stenberg)1–0

2ndshots 9–14

01:55STLJ. Berggrenpower play(P. Buchnevich, R. Thomas)2–0
07:35FLAA. Greer(J. Boqvist, S. Jones)2–1
12:45FLAS. Reinhartpower play(B. Marchand, S. Bennett)2–2
19:59STLJ. Faulk(J. Berggren)3–2

3rdshots 16–8

12:02STLJ. Neighbours(O. Stenberg, B. Schenn)4–2
12:53STLR. Thomas(P. Buchnevich, J. Berggren)5–2
16:28STLR. Thomasempty net6–2

score reads STL–FLA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.69

STL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.074

STL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.69Expected goals3.06

STL 61% of the chance quality

32Shots on goal29

8High-danger chances6

54All attempts (Corsi)54

Adjusted for score: STL 46% · FLA 54%

Faceoffs · FLA won46%off50%neu52%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL2 / 8 · 2.36 xG

FLA1 / 6 · 1.30 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL2 / 14 · 1.77 xG

FLA1 / 12 · 1.24 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL2 / 32 · 0.57 xG

FLA0 / 36 · 0.51 xG

STL went 2-for-32 from low danger on 0.57 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

6 G · 4.69 xG · +1.3

FLA

2 G · 3.06 xG · -1.1

01234567

STL finished +1.3 against expected, FLA -1.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

WRIST3/22

SNAP1/9

SLAP1/4

TIP IN1/5

BACKHAND0/5

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/8

FLA

WRIST1/27

SNAP0/2

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED1/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/16

STL

FLA

Off the rush

5 G on 29

3.05 xG

1 G on 22

1.98 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.19 xG

1 G on 1

0.20 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 3-for-22, FLA 1-for-27. STL scored 5 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. Hofer

STL · 27/29 · .931

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.3+0.3

Medium1/121.2+0.2

Low0/360.5+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

D. Tarasov

FLA · 26/31 · .839

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/82.4+0.4

Medium2/141.8-0.2

Low2/320.6-1.4

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

46 shots

Final

84 shots

FLA

38 shots

STL FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:09 on ice · +3

J. Berggren

#29 · R · STL

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 15:47 on ice · +2

P. Buchnevich

#89 · L · STL

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:22 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 20

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:14 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 has this nearly dead even—a projected 2.5–2.6 goal spread with the Panthers holding 52% win probability. Not because both teams are identical, but because their advantages cancel out.

The Panthers have momentum. They've gone 6–3–1 over their last ten, while St. Louis sits at -14 goal differential over the same span—substantially behind. But at five-on-five, the gap collapses. Both teams sit at 49.0% expected goals. The meaningful difference lives in possession: Florida drives Corsi at 52.0% to St. Louis's 48.0%, meaning the Panthers will spend more time in the offensive zone. That territorial edge usually matters, except the Panthers' conversion underperforms their dominance; their PDO is 0.989, while the Blues sit at 1.000. St. Louis's scoring luck will regress downward.

J. Binnington plays on a back-to-back, which could matter. Watch for a backup start or a starter running on fumes.

The player matchups are sharp. Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 22A) leads St. Louis at 0.86 xG/60 with an 11.9% shooting rate; he's earned his production. Dylan Holloway (13G, 24A) operates at 0.82 xG/60 with 10.8% shooting. For Florida, Sam Bennett (18G, 19A) leads at 0.97 xG/60 with 6 high-danger goals and 13.1% shooting. Brad Marchand (17G, 9A) runs 0.93 xG/60 but shoots at 19.5%—a rate that will almost certainly regress, suggesting his goal total is inflated.

The case for the Blues rests on St. Louis's lucky conversion not regressing as sharply as Florida's will. The case for the Panthers is simpler: they control the puck. In a matchup this tight, possession is an edge. But not decisive. Goaltending health will tip the balance as much as underlying skill.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 52%

52%

FLA

Model favorite

48%

52%

STL50FLA

FLA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.5–2.6 FLA; 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 →FLA

49.0%49.0%

48.0%52.0%

2.342.48

2.402.56

2.001.98

2.122.21

1.0000.989

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.989) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

STL

4-5-1

-14 GD · 1d rest

FLA

6-3-1

+3 GD · 2d rest

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Panthers are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
The Blues are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

back-to-back.935 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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.

FLA

Expected in goal

D. Tarasov

2 days rest.931 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page