Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
Breakdown · NSH at STL

Blues hold off the Predators

The verdict · coin flip

The Blues won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

NSH 2 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:58 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 Blues won 3–2 against the Predators, though the expected-goals split (3.75–3.92) said Nashville deserved to advance. The closer team's luck held.

Nashville underperformed their xG by 1.92 goals. J. Hofer (STL) stole the show: 30 of 32 saves (0.938 SV%), 1.92 goals better than the shot quality merited. Without that performance, the scoreboard flips.

The raw territory favored Nashville. They held the ball, firing 32 attempts to St. Louis's 20. But St. Louis squeezed danger from scarcity. They generated 0.101 expected goals per shot versus Nashville's 0.054—nearly twice as lethal per attempt.

High-danger chances split 8–7 for St. Louis. Nashville created the better looks in aggregate but couldn't finish. The Predators scored twice on 28 rush chances. The Blues scored twice on 21—more clinical in transition.

The pivot came in the third period, when Fedor Svechkov's wrist shot from a sharp angle put St. Louis ahead. J. Saros (NSH) stopped 17 of 20 (0.850 SV%, +0.75 above expectation), a solid performance against relentless pressure that the final score didn't acknowledge.

St. Louis crashed the net with purpose, creating 4 rebound opportunities but converting none. Nashville managed 3. The Blues' method was surgical: fewer shots, higher conversion, and goaltending that overperformed when it mattered most.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 27
NSH
2
STL
3

Blues hold off the Predators

Chances 3.9 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blues took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
3.92
STL
3.75
51% of the chances49%

The board read NSH 2, STL 3. The chances read NSH 3.9, STL 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
−0.8
goals above expected
STL3.75 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH3.92 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Predators left 1.9 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 08:45STLB. SchennPP0–1
  2. P1 11:41NSHT. Jost1–1
  3. P1 18:14STLP. Buchnevich1–2
  4. P3 04:40STLP. Buchnevich1–3
  5. P3 12:03NSHF. SvechkovSH2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
52 shots
2
Final
86 shots
STL
34 shots
3
NSH attackSTL attack
NSH STL Goal
52
shots · 2 in
34
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHSTL
1 / 7
1.52 xG
High danger
1 / 8
2.02 xG
1 / 17
1.78 xG
Medium
2 / 14
1.47 xG
0 / 48
0.61 xG
Low
0 / 15
0.25 xG

High-danger looks: NSH 1 of 7, STL 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Hofer
+1.9
STL · 30/32
B+
J. Saros
+0.8
NSH · 17/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues hold off the Predators

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 8–8
  1. 08:45STLB. Schennpower play(C. Fowler, D. Dvorsky)0–1
  2. 11:41NSHT. Jost(N. Hague)1–1
  3. 18:14STLP. Buchnevich(R. Thomas)1–2
2ndshots 10–5no goals
    3rdshots 14–7
    1. 04:40STLP. Buchnevich(R. Thomas, P. Broberg)1–3
    2. 12:03NSHF. Svechkovshorthanded(E. Haula, N. Hague)2–3

    score reads NSH–STL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.75
    STL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.053
    STL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    33.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.92Expected goals3.75
    NSH 51% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal20
    7High-danger chances8
    72All attempts (Corsi)37
    Adjusted for score: NSH 69% · STL 31%
    Faceoffs · STL won57%off60%neu67%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH1 / 7 · 1.52 xG
    STL1 / 8 · 2.02 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH1 / 17 · 1.78 xG
    STL2 / 14 · 1.47 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH0 / 48 · 0.61 xG
    STL0 / 15 · 0.25 xG

    STL went 1-for-8 from high danger on 2.02 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    2 G · 3.92 xG · -1.9
    STL
    3 G · 3.75 xG · -0.8
    012345

    NSH finished -1.9 against expected, STL -0.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    WRIST1/32
    SNAP0/6
    TIP IN1/5
    SLAP0/6
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/20
    STL
    WRIST1/18
    SNAP0/8
    TIP IN1/4
    SLAP0/1
    BACKHAND1/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/3
    NSH
    STL
    Off the rush
    2 G on 28
    2.71 xG
    2 G on 21
    2.32 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.32 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.61 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 1-for-32, STL 1-for-18. NSH 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. Saros
    NSH · 17/20 · .850
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/82.0+1.0
    Medium2/141.5-0.5
    Low0/150.3+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

    J. Hofer
    STL · 30/32 · .938
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.5+0.5
    Medium1/171.8+0.8
    Low0/480.6+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

    86 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    52 shots
    2
    Final
    86 shots
    STL
    34 shots
    3
    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
    P. Buchnevich
    #89 · L · STL
    2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:48 on ice · +2
    R. Thomas
    #18 · C · STL
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:43 on ice · +2
    N. Hague
    #41 · D · NSH
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:05 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 27
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:57 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 Blues carry 52% win probability in a game the model projects at 2.4–2.6 goals. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    St. Louis sits at -7 goal differential over their last 10 games, yet the season picture remains balanced. Both teams generated 49.0% xG—meaning neither earned an expected-goals edge. Nashville holds a slight puck-possession advantage at 50.0% Corsi% to St. Louis's 48.0%. PDO is nearly identical (Nashville 0.992, St. Louis 1.000), indicating that shooting luck and goaltending have played equal parts.

    The striking detail: both teams have generated 0% of their goals from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds. That void makes whoever converts a close-range opportunity or scores on a second chance the likely winner.

    Players to Watch

    Nashville

    • Zachary L'Heureux: 0.85 xG/60, 4G 0A, 1 HD goals, 16.0% shooting
    • Filip Forsberg: 0.80 xG/60, 23G 17A, 4 HD goals, 13.6% shooting

    St. Louis

    • Jimmy Snuggerud: 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
    • Dylan Holloway: 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goals, 10.8% shooting

    Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's defensive weak link; Jimmy Snuggerud fills that role for St. Louis. In a game with this little margin, those liabilities matter.

    The model has this right. Expect tight margins decided by execution.

    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
    7-3-0
    +6 GD · 3d rest
    STL
    5-4-1
    -7 GD · 4d 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
    • The Blues are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    NSH
    Expected in goal
    J. Saros
    3 days rest.938 last start
    Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Binnington
    4 days rest.765 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